1963 Reliant Sabre Six vs. 2012 Ford F-250
To start off, 2012 Ford F-250 is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Reliant Sabre Six. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Reliant Sabre Six would be higher. At 6,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Ford F-250 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford F-250 (385 HP) has 277 more horse power than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six. (108 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford F-250 should accelerate faster than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six.
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, 2012 Ford F-250 (548 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 363 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six. (185 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2012 Ford F-250 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Reliant Sabre Six.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Reliant Sabre Six | 2012 Ford F-250 | |
| Make | Reliant | Ford |
| Model | Sabre Six | F-250 |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2553 cc | 6200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 385 HP |
| Torque | 185 Nm | 548 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Flex Fuel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 4060 mm | 6269 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1280 mm | 1966 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 3967 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 38 L | 132 L |
