2004 Chevrolet Astro vs. 1969 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Chevrolet Astro is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,731 cc (8 cylinders), 1969 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1969 Ford Mustang (217 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 27 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Astro. (190 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Astro. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Astro weights approximately 790 kg more than 1969 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:
2004 Chevrolet Astro | 1969 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Astro | Mustang |
Year Released | 2004 | 1969 |
Body Type | Minivan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4294 cc | 4731 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 190 HP | 217 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 8 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1955 kg | 1165 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4620 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1740 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1910 mm | 1310 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2750 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 102 L | 41 L |