Chrysler Concorde 1998 vs Ford Mustang 1999
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Body: | Sedan | Coupe | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
| Chrysler Concorde is available only with automatic gearbox, whereas Ford Mustang has both automatic and manual transmission options. | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Chrysler Concorde is available with front wheel drive, while Ford Mustang can be equipped with rear wheel drive. | |||
| Engines: | 2.7 - 3.5 | 3.8 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 203 - 253 HP | 193 HP | |
| Torque: | 258 - 339 NM | 298 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 - 10.5 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 - 10.8 | 12.0 | |
|
Chrysler Concorde petrol engines consumes on average 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than Ford Mustang. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.29 m | 4.66 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.86 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.35 m | |
|
Chrysler Concorde is larger. Chrysler Concorde is 63 cm longer than the Ford Mustang, 3 cm wider, while the height of Chrysler Concorde is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 530 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
530 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.7 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 16 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chrysler Concorde has
|
Ford Mustang has
| |