1995 Ford Falcon vs. 1966 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1995 Ford Falcon is newer by 29 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 3,705 cc (6 cylinders), 1995 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1995 Ford Falcon (228 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 137 more horse power than 1966 Triumph 2000. (91 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1995 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1966 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1995 Ford Falcon weights approximately 410 kg more than 1966 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, 1995 Ford Falcon (398 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 240 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1995 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
1995 Ford Falcon | 1966 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Triumph |
Model | Falcon | 2000 |
Year Released | 1995 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3705 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 228 HP | 91 HP |
Engine RPM | 4500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 398 Nm | 158 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1580 kg | 1170 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1870 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2700 mm |