1956 Buick 40 vs. 2000 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2000 Ford Falcon is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 Buick 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 Buick 40 would be higher. At 5,279 cc (8 cylinders), 1956 Buick 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Falcon (220 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 1956 Buick 40. (217 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1956 Buick 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1956 Buick 40 weights approximately 186 kg more than 2000 Ford Falcon.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1956 Buick 40 (433 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 76 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford Falcon. (357 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1956 Buick 40 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford Falcon.
Compare all specifications:
1956 Buick 40 | 2000 Ford Falcon | |
Make | Buick | Ford |
Model | 40 | Falcon |
Year Released | 1956 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5279 cc | 3984 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 217 HP | 220 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 433 Nm | 357 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1704 kg | 1518 kg |
Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1880 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3110 mm | 2800 mm |