2004 Ford Ranger vs. 1969 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2004 Ford Ranger is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1969 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (355 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 207 more horse power than 2004 Ford Ranger. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Ranger.
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, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (300 Nm) has 49 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Ranger. (251 Nm). This means 1969 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Ranger | 1969 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Ranger | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1969 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2983 cc | 7029 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 355 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 251 Nm | 300 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 2900 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 29.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 74 L | 91 L |
