2000 Ford Mustang vs. 1996 Renault Clio
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Renault Clio. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Renault Clio would be higher. At 4,603 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (260 HP) has 10 more horse power than 1996 Renault Clio. (250 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1996 Renault Clio. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Renault Clio weights approximately 170 kg more than 2000 Ford Mustang.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Renault Clio (407 Nm) has 1 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford Mustang. (406 Nm). This means 1996 Renault Clio will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Mustang | 1996 Renault Clio | |
| Make | Ford | Renault |
| Model | Mustang | Clio |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1996 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Size | 4603 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 260 HP | 250 HP |
| Torque | 406 Nm | 407 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1480 kg | 1650 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 3780 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1640 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2490 mm |
