2004 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2013 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 6,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2013 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro (420 HP @ 5900 RPM) has 140 more horse power than 2004 Ford Thunderbird. (280 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Thunderbird.
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, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro (569 Nm) has 181 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Thunderbird. (388 Nm). This means 2013 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Thunderbird | 2013 Chevrolet Camaro | |
Make | Ford | Chevrolet |
Model | Thunderbird | Camaro |
Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3933 cc | 6200 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 280 HP | 420 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5900 RPM |
Torque | 388 Nm | 569 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 86 mm | 103 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 85 mm | 92 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.8:1 | 10.7 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4740 mm | 4836 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1918 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1377 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2852 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.2 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.4 L/100km | 12.3 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 72 L |