2002 Ford Econovan vs. 1962 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2002 Ford Econovan is newer by 40 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 6,964 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1962 Ford Thunderbird (345 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 255 more horse power than 2002 Ford Econovan. (90 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1962 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2002 Ford Econovan. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Ford Thunderbird weights approximately 580 kg more than 2002 Ford Econovan. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Ford Econovan | 1962 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Econovan | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1789 cc | 6964 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 90 HP | 345 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1295 kg | 1875 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 5210 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1640 mm | 1930 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1870 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2880 mm |
