1950 Holden FX vs. 1964 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1964 Triumph 2000 is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1950 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1950 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,165 cc (6 cylinders), 1950 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Triumph 2000 (89 HP) has 38 more horse power than 1950 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1964 Triumph 2000 should accelerate faster than 1950 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Triumph 2000 weights approximately 200 kg more than 1950 Holden FX. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1964 Triumph 2000 (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 1950 Holden FX. (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1964 Triumph 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1950 Holden FX.
Compare all specifications:
| 1950 Holden FX | 1964 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Holden | Triumph |
| Model | FX | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1950 | 1964 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2165 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 89 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 158 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2700 mm |
