1963 Triumph 2000 vs. 2012 Ford E-350
To start off, 2012 Ford E-350 is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 5,400 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Ford E-350 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford E-350 (255 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 125 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (130 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford E-350 should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Ford E-350 weights approximately 1635 kg more than 1963 Triumph 2000. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2012 Ford E-350 (474 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 276 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2012 Ford E-350 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Triumph 2000 | 2012 Ford E-350 | |
| Make | Triumph | Ford |
| Model | 2000 | E-350 |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2498 cc | 5400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 130 HP | 255 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Torque | 198 Nm | 474 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Flex Fuel |
| Vehicle Weight | 1195 kg | 2830 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4420 mm | 5504 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 2017 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 2111 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 3505 mm |
