1964 Ford Falcon vs. 1951 Singer SM 1500
To start off, 1964 Ford Falcon is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Singer SM 1500. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Singer SM 1500 would be higher. At 2,890 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Ford Falcon (282 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 235 more horse power than 1951 Singer SM 1500. (47 HP @ 4200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1951 Singer SM 1500. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Singer SM 1500 weights approximately 140 kg more than 1964 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, 1964 Ford Falcon (244 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 146 more torque (in Nm) than 1951 Singer SM 1500. (98 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 1964 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1951 Singer SM 1500.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Ford Falcon | 1951 Singer SM 1500 | |
Make | Ford | Singer |
Model | Falcon | SM 1500 |
Year Released | 1964 | 1951 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2890 cc | 1495 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 282 HP | 47 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Torque | 244 Nm | 98 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 2200 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 20.2:1 | 7.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 700 kg | 840 kg |