1996 Proton 400 vs. 1963 Rover 2000

To start off, 1996 Proton 400 is newer by 33 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Rover 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Rover 2000 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Proton 400 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Rover 2000 (91 HP) has 24 more horse power than 1996 Proton 400. (67 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1963 Rover 2000 should accelerate faster than 1996 Proton 400. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Rover 2000 weights approximately 77 kg more than 1996 Proton 400. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1963 Rover 2000 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1963 Rover 2000. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Proton 400, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1963 Rover 2000 (150 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Proton 400. (123 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1963 Rover 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Proton 400.

Compare all specifications: