1955 Austin A 40 vs. 1966 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1966 Triumph 2000 is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1955 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1955 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Triumph 2000 (91 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 1955 Austin A 40. (41 HP @ 4500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Triumph 2000 should accelerate faster than 1955 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Triumph 2000 weights approximately 140 kg more than 1955 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1966 Triumph 2000 (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 79 more torque (in Nm) than 1955 Austin A 40. (79 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 1966 Triumph 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1955 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1955 Austin A 40 | 1966 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Austin | Triumph |
| Model | A 40 | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1955 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 41 HP | 91 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 79 Nm | 158 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 7.2:1 | 9.3:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4130 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1570 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1570 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2530 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 64 L |
