2009 Dodge Dakota vs. 1969 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2009 Dodge Dakota is newer by 40 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 145 more horse power than 2009 Dodge Dakota. (210 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1969 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2009 Dodge Dakota.
Because 2009 Dodge Dakota is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Dodge Dakota will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Dodge Dakota (319 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 19 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Ford Thunderbird. (300 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Dodge Dakota will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Ford Thunderbird.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Dodge Dakota | 1969 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Dodge | Ford |
| Model | Dakota | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1969 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3700 cc | 7029 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 355 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 319 Nm | 300 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.3:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Wheelbase Size | 3340 mm | 2900 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 13.1 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 29.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 91 L |
