1982 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2003 Ford Econoline
To start off, 2003 Ford Econoline is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 4,195 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Ford Econoline is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Econoline (197 HP @ 4700 RPM) has 108 more horse power than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. (89 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Econoline should accelerate faster than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro.
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, 2003 Ford Econoline (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM) has 159 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2003 Ford Econoline will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Chevrolet Camaro | 2003 Ford Econoline | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Camaro | Econoline |
Year Released | 1982 | 2003 |
Body Type | Coupe | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2474 cc | 4195 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 197 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4700 RPM |
Torque | 179 Nm | 338 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 2700 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 5390 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 2020 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 3510 mm |