2003 BMW 320 vs. 1969 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2003 BMW 320 is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1969 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (355 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 205 more horse power than 2003 BMW 320. (150 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2003 BMW 320.
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, 2003 BMW 320 (350 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 50 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2003 BMW 320 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
2003 BMW 320 | 1969 Ford Thunderbird | |
Make | BMW | Ford |
Model | 320 | Thunderbird |
Year Released | 2003 | 1969 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1995 cc | 7029 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 150 HP | 355 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 350 Nm | 300 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 17.0:1 | 10.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2900 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 5.4 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 9.7 L/100km | 29.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 91 L |