2003 Chrysler Concorde vs. 1996 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2003 Chrysler Concorde is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,942 cc (8 cylinders), 1996 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Ford Mustang (212 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 22 more horse power than 2003 Chrysler Concorde. (190 HP @ 5700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2003 Chrysler Concorde. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Chrysler Concorde weights approximately 108 kg more than 1996 Ford Mustang.
Because 1996 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 1996 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Chrysler Concorde, 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:
2003 Chrysler Concorde | 1996 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Chrysler | Ford |
Model | Concorde | Mustang |
Year Released | 2003 | 1996 |
Body Type | Sedan | Convertible |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2736 cc | 4942 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 190 HP | 212 HP |
Engine RPM | 5700 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1578 kg | 1470 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5320 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2580 mm |