1966 Riley Kestrel vs. 2010 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2010 Ford Falcon is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Riley Kestrel. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Riley Kestrel would be higher. At 5,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford Falcon (387 HP) has 334 more horse power than 1966 Riley Kestrel. (53 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1966 Riley Kestrel.
Because 2010 Ford Falcon 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 2010 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1966 Riley Kestrel, 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, 2010 Ford Falcon (520 Nm) has 437 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Riley Kestrel. (83 Nm). This means 2010 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Riley Kestrel.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Riley Kestrel | 2010 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Riley | Ford |
| Model | Kestrel | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
| Engine Size | 1098 cc | 5000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 53 HP | 387 HP |
| Torque | 83 Nm | 520 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 3730 mm | 4967 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1540 mm | 1868 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1433 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2380 mm | 2838 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 25 L | 68 L |
