1996 Chevrolet Malibu vs. 1968 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1996 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 3,135 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Chevrolet Malibu (150 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 61 more horse power than 1968 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Malibu should accelerate faster than 1968 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Chevrolet Malibu weights approximately 295 kg more than 1968 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, 1996 Chevrolet Malibu (249 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 91 more torque (in Nm) than 1968 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1996 Chevrolet Malibu will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1968 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Chevrolet Malibu | 1968 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Triumph |
Model | Malibu | 2000 |
Year Released | 1996 | 1968 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3135 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 150 HP | 89 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 249 Nm | 158 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1465 kg | 1170 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4850 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 56 L | 64 L |