1952 Triumph TR2 vs. 1981 Zastava 102
To start off, 1981 Zastava 102 is newer by 29 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Triumph TR2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Triumph TR2 would be higher. At 1,991 cc (4 cylinders), 1952 Triumph TR2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1952 Triumph TR2 (90 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 1981 Zastava 102. (67 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Triumph TR2 should accelerate faster than 1981 Zastava 102. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Triumph TR2 weights approximately 91 kg more than 1981 Zastava 102. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1952 Triumph TR2 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1952 Triumph TR2. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1981 Zastava 102, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Triumph TR2 | 1981 Zastava 102 | |
| Make | Triumph | Zastava |
| Model | TR2 | 102 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1981 |
| Engine Size | 1991 cc | 1302 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 90 HP | 67 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 865 kg | 774 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3840 mm | 3500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1420 mm | 1550 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1280 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2250 mm | 2160 mm |
