1966 Alvis TF vs. 2003 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2003 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Alvis TF. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Alvis TF would be higher. At 3,135 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Chevrolet Malibu (168 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 1966 Alvis TF. (150 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Chevrolet Malibu should accelerate faster than 1966 Alvis TF.
Because 1966 Alvis TF is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1966 Alvis TF. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Chevrolet Malibu, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2003 Chevrolet Malibu (257 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 10 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Alvis TF. (247 Nm @ 3750 RPM). This means 2003 Chevrolet Malibu will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Alvis TF.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Alvis TF | 2003 Chevrolet Malibu | |
Make | Alvis | Chevrolet |
Model | TF | Malibu |
Year Released | 1966 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2993 cc | 3135 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 150 HP | 168 HP |
Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 247 Nm | 257 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4810 mm | 4840 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1770 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2720 mm |