1986 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1965 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 5,040 cc (8 cylinders), 1986 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro (190 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 101 more horse power than 1965 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 1965 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1986 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 400 kg more than 1965 Triumph 2000. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro (386 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 228 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1986 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 1986 Chevrolet Camaro | 1965 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Triumph |
| Model | Camaro | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1986 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5040 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 386 Nm | 158 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 95 mm | 74.7 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88.9 mm | 76 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 9.3:1 |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1570 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1280 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2700 mm |
