1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2006 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2006 Ford Falcon is newer by 20 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Caterham 1700 would be higher. At 3,984 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Ford Falcon (200 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 1986 Caterham 1700. (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1986 Caterham 1700.
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. 2006 Ford Falcon has automatic transmission and 1986 Caterham 1700 has manual transmission. 1986 Caterham 1700 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2006 Ford Falcon will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1986 Caterham 1700 | 2006 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Caterham | Ford |
| Model | 1700 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 3984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 200 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 9.6:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2930 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 70 L |
