2003 Dodge Ram vs. 1962 Ford Thunderbird
To start off, 2003 Dodge Ram is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 6,964 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1962 Ford Thunderbird (345 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 130 more horse power than 2003 Dodge Ram. (215 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1962 Ford Thunderbird should accelerate faster than 2003 Dodge Ram. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Dodge Ram weights approximately 55 kg more than 1962 Ford Thunderbird.
Because 1962 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 1962 Ford Thunderbird. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Dodge Ram, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Dodge Ram | 1962 Ford Thunderbird | |
| Make | Dodge | Ford |
| Model | Ram | Thunderbird |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3700 cc | 6964 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 215 HP | 345 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1930 kg | 1875 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5280 mm | 5210 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1930 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1900 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3030 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 40 L |
