2004 Ford Mustang vs. 1960 Holden FC
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Holden FC. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Holden FC would be higher. At 4,995 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (435 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 373 more horse power than 1960 Holden FC. (62 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1960 Holden FC.
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, 2004 Ford Mustang (544 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 394 more torque (in Nm) than 1960 Holden FC. (150 Nm @ 1400 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1960 Holden FC.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 1960 Holden FC | |
| Make | Ford | Holden |
| Model | Mustang | FC |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4995 cc | 2165 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 435 HP | 62 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 544 Nm | 150 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 1400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1710 mm |
