2005 Dodge Neon vs. 1969 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2005 Dodge Neon is newer by 36 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 223 more horse power than 2005 Dodge Neon. (132 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2005 Dodge Neon.
Because 1969 Ford Thunderbird 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 1969 Ford Thunderbird. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Dodge Neon, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1969 Ford Thunderbird (300 Nm) has 124 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Dodge Neon. (176 Nm). This means 1969 Ford Thunderbird will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Dodge Neon.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Dodge Neon | 1969 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Dodge | Ford |
| Model | Neon | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1969 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1999 cc | 7029 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 132 HP | 355 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 176 Nm | 300 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.3:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2900 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.5 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 8.1 L/100km | 29.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 91 L |
