2004 Ford Mustang vs. 1982 Mitsubishi Colt
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mitsubishi Colt. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mitsubishi Colt would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Mustang weights approximately 764 kg more than 1982 Mitsubishi Colt.
Because 2004 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 2004 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Mitsubishi Colt, 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:
2004 Ford Mustang | 1982 Mitsubishi Colt | |
Make | Ford | Mitsubishi |
Model | Mustang | Colt |
Year Released | 2004 | 1982 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4605 cc | 1244 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 305 HP | 0 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1574 kg | 810 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 3800 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1590 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2310 mm |