1952 Buick 40 vs. 1999 Ford Falcon
To start off, 1999 Ford Falcon is newer by 47 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Buick 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Buick 40 would be higher. At 4,066 cc (8 cylinders), 1952 Buick 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1999 Ford Falcon (220 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 102 more horse power than 1952 Buick 40. (118 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1999 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1952 Buick 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Buick 40 weights approximately 105 kg more than 1999 Ford Falcon.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1999 Ford Falcon (366 Nm @ 3150 RPM) has 74 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Buick 40. (292 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1999 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Buick 40.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Buick 40 | 1999 Ford Falcon | |
Make | Buick | Ford |
Model | 40 | Falcon |
Year Released | 1952 | 1999 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4066 cc | 3982 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 118 HP | 220 HP |
Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 292 Nm | 366 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 3150 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 78.6 mm | 92.3 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 104.8 mm | 99.3 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 1530 kg |
Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1880 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3090 mm | 2880 mm |