2003 Ford Mustang vs. 1965 Lincoln Continental
To start off, 2003 Ford Mustang is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Lincoln Continental. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Lincoln Continental would be higher. At 7,048 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Lincoln Continental is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Mustang (400 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 116 more horse power than 1965 Lincoln Continental. (284 HP @ 4600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1965 Lincoln Continental. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Lincoln Continental weights approximately 914 kg more than 2003 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Ford Mustang | 1965 Lincoln Continental | |
| Make | Ford | Lincoln |
| Model | Mustang | Continental |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4601 cc | 7048 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 284 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1492 kg | 2406 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4630 mm | 5500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 2000 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1300 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 3210 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 90 L |
