1996 Ford Ranger vs. 1974 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1996 Ford Ranger is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1974 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1974 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 2,507 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Ford Ranger (118 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 35 more horse power than 1974 Triumph 2000. (83 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1974 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Ford Ranger weights approximately 150 kg more than 1974 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 Ford Ranger (198 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 63 more torque (in Nm) than 1974 Triumph 2000. (135 Nm @ 2900 RPM). This means 1996 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1974 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Ford Ranger | 1974 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Ford | Triumph |
| Model | Ranger | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1996 | 1974 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2507 cc | 1996 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 118 HP | 83 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 198 Nm | 135 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2900 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1395 kg | 1245 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4510 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2700 mm |
