1952 Jaguar XK 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 Jaguar XK. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Jaguar XK would be higher. At 3,441 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Jaguar XK is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1952 Jaguar XK (158 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 28 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (130 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Jaguar XK should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Jaguar XK weights approximately 100 kg more than 1963 Triumph 2000. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1952 Jaguar XK (290 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 92 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1952 Jaguar XK will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Jaguar XK | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Jaguar | Triumph |
Model | XK | 2000 |
Year Released | 1952 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3441 cc | 2498 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 158 HP | 130 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 290 Nm | 198 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83 mm | 74.8 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 106 mm | 95 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1295 kg | 1195 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1570 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2700 mm |