2000 Ford Puma vs. 1965 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2000 Ford Puma is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,261 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1965 Ford Mustang (163 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 10 more horse power than 2000 Ford Puma. (153 HP @ 7000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1965 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford Puma. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Puma weights approximately 159 kg more than 1965 Ford Mustang.
Because 1965 Ford Mustang is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1965 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Ford Puma, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Ford Puma | 1965 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Ford | Ford |
Model | Puma | Mustang |
Year Released | 2000 | 1965 |
Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1679 cc | 4261 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 153 HP | 163 HP |
Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1275 kg | 1116 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3990 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1740 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1310 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2450 mm | 2750 mm |