2000 Chevrolet Astro vs. 1964 Ford Zodiac
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Astro is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Ford Zodiac. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Ford Zodiac would be higher. At 4,300 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Astro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Ford Zodiac weights approximately 83 kg more than 2000 Chevrolet Astro.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Astro is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1964 Ford Zodiac. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Astro will offer significantly more control. 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, 2000 Chevrolet Astro (339 Nm) has 148 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Ford Zodiac. (191 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Astro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Ford Zodiac.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Astro | 1964 Ford Zodiac | |
Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
Model | Astro | Zodiac |
Year Released | 2000 | 1964 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4300 cc | 2553 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 108 HP |
Torque | 339 Nm | 191 Nm |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 8 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1187 kg | 1270 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 4650 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1770 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1940 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2780 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 45 L |