1998 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 1998 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro (190 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 60 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (130 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1998 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 395 kg more than 1963 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, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro (305 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 107 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1998 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 1998 Chevrolet Camaro | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Triumph |
| Model | Camaro | 2000 |
| Year Released | 1998 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3791 cc | 2498 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 130 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 305 Nm | 198 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1590 kg | 1195 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2700 mm |
