1956 AC Aceca-Bristol vs. 2000 Ford Equator
To start off, 2000 Ford Equator is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol would be higher. At 1,971 cc (6 cylinders), 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Equator (128 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol. (125 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Equator should accelerate faster than 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Equator weights approximately 243 kg more than 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol (167 Nm) has 7 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford Equator. (160 Nm). This means 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford Equator. 2000 Ford Equator has automatic transmission and 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol has manual transmission. 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Ford Equator will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1956 AC Aceca-Bristol | 2000 Ford Equator | |
Make | AC | Ford |
Model | Aceca-Bristol | Equator |
Year Released | 1956 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1971 cc | 1787 cc |
Horse Power | 125 HP | 128 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 167 Nm | 160 Nm |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 965 kg | 1208 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 3260 mm |