2008 Acura TL vs. 1969 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2008 Acura TL is newer by 39 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 69 more horse power than 2008 Acura TL. (286 HP @ 6200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2008 Acura TL.
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, 2008 Acura TL, 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, 2008 Acura TL (347 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 47 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2008 Acura TL will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Acura TL | 1969 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Acura | Ford |
| Model | TL | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2008 | 1969 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3471 cc | 7029 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 286 HP | 355 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 347 Nm | 300 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2900 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.2 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14 L/100km | 29.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 65 L | 91 L |
