1966 DAF Daffodil vs. 2010 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2010 Jaguar XJ is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 DAF Daffodil. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 DAF Daffodil would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Jaguar XJ (271 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 245 more horse power than 1966 DAF Daffodil. (26 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 1966 DAF Daffodil. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 1130 kg more than 1966 DAF Daffodil. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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.
Compare all specifications:
1966 DAF Daffodil | 2010 Jaguar XJ | |
Make | DAF | Jaguar |
Model | Daffodil | XJ |
Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 746 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 26 HP | 271 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 666 kg | 1796 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3620 mm | 5127 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1450 mm | 1895 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1456 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2060 mm | 3157 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 33 L | 82 L |