1964 Triumph 2000 vs. 1983 Zastava 102
To start off, 1983 Zastava 102 is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Triumph 2000 (89 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 1983 Zastava 102. (49 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Triumph 2000 should accelerate faster than 1983 Zastava 102. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Triumph 2000 weights approximately 400 kg more than 1983 Zastava 102. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1964 Triumph 2000 (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 63 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Zastava 102. (95 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1964 Triumph 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Zastava 102.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Triumph 2000 | 1983 Zastava 102 | |
| Make | Triumph | Zastava |
| Model | 2000 | 102 |
| Year Released | 1964 | 1983 |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 1299 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 89 HP | 49 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 158 Nm | 95 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1170 kg | 770 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4420 mm | 3500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1550 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2160 mm |
