1963 Rover 2000 vs. 1956 Rover P4
To start off, 1963 Rover 2000 is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 Rover P4. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 Rover P4 would be higher. At 1,997 cc (4 cylinders), 1956 Rover P4 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Rover 2000 (91 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 1956 Rover P4. (51 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1963 Rover 2000 should accelerate faster than 1956 Rover P4. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1956 Rover P4 weights approximately 168 kg more than 1963 Rover 2000.
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, 1963 Rover 2000 (150 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 12 more torque (in Nm) than 1956 Rover P4. (138 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1963 Rover 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1956 Rover P4.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Rover 2000 | 1956 Rover P4 | |
| Make | Rover | Rover |
| Model | 2000 | P4 |
| Year Released | 1963 | 1956 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1978 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 91 HP | 51 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 150 Nm | 138 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2750 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1212 kg | 1380 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4550 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1680 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1620 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2830 mm |
