1952 Holden FX vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1963 Triumph 2000 is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,498 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Triumph 2000 (130 HP) has 79 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1963 Triumph 2000 should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Triumph 2000 weights approximately 225 kg more than 1952 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, 1963 Triumph 2000 (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 62 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Holden FX. (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1963 Triumph 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Holden FX.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Holden FX | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Holden | Triumph |
| Model | FX | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2166 cc | 2498 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 130 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 198 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 1195 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 |
