2006 Ford Mustang vs. 1996 Rover 200
To start off, 2006 Ford Mustang is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Rover 200. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Rover 200 would be higher. At 4,606 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Ford Mustang weights approximately 169 kg more than 1996 Rover 200.
Because 2006 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 2006 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Rover 200, 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, 2006 Ford Mustang (868 Nm) has 741 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Rover 200. (127 Nm). This means 2006 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Rover 200.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Ford Mustang | 1996 Rover 200 | |
| Make | Ford | Rover |
| Model | Mustang | 200 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4606 cc | 1396 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 103 HP |
| Torque | 868 Nm | 127 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1244 kg | 1075 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4230 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1410 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2510 mm |
