1982 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2004 Ford Transit Connect
To start off, 2004 Ford Transit Connect is newer by 22 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 2,474 cc (6 cylinders), 1982 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 89 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
Because 1982 Chevrolet Camaro 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 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Ford Transit Connect, 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, 2004 Ford Transit Connect (220 Nm @ 1700 RPM) has 41 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Transit Connect will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Chevrolet Camaro | 2004 Ford Transit Connect | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Camaro | Transit Connect |
Year Released | 1982 | 2004 |
Body Type | Coupe | Panel Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2474 cc | 1752 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 89 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 179 Nm | 220 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 1700 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 4280 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1800 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2670 mm |