1965 Triumph 2000 vs. 1990 Ford Falcon
To start off, 1990 Ford Falcon is newer by 25 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 3,157 cc (6 cylinders), 1990 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1990 Ford Falcon (120 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 31 more horse power than 1965 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1990 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1965 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1990 Ford Falcon weights approximately 250 kg more than 1965 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, 1990 Ford Falcon (235 Nm @ 3250 RPM) has 77 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1990 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
1965 Triumph 2000 | 1990 Ford Falcon | |
Make | Triumph | Ford |
Model | 2000 | Falcon |
Year Released | 1965 | 1990 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1997 cc | 3157 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 120 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 158 Nm | 235 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3250 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1170 kg | 1420 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4420 mm | 4820 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2800 mm |