2000 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1963 BMW 3200 CS
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 BMW 3200 CS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 BMW 3200 CS would be higher. At 5,670 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 40 kg more than 1963 BMW 3200 CS.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 Camaro (468 Nm) has 228 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 BMW 3200 CS. (240 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 BMW 3200 CS.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Camaro | 1963 BMW 3200 CS | |
Make | Chevrolet | BMW |
Model | Camaro | 3200 CS |
Year Released | 2000 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5670 cc | 3169 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 160 HP |
Torque | 468 Nm | 240 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1540 kg | 1500 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4390 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1540 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2840 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 57 L | 75 L |