1968 Ford 17 vs. 1952 Holden FX
To start off, 1968 Ford 17 is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1968 Ford 17 (59 HP) has 8 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1968 Ford 17 should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Ford 17 weights approximately 86 kg more than 1952 Holden FX. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1952 Holden FX (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 1968 Ford 17. (112 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 1952 Holden FX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1968 Ford 17.
Compare all specifications:
1968 Ford 17 | 1952 Holden FX | |
Make | Ford | Holden |
Model | 17 | FX |
Year Released | 1968 | 1952 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1498 cc | 2166 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 59 HP | 51 HP |
Torque | 112 Nm | 136 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1056 kg | 970 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4460 mm | 4380 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1710 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1580 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 2620 mm |