2000 Ford Falcon vs. 1952 Triumph Renown
To start off, 2000 Ford Falcon is newer by 48 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Triumph Renown. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Triumph Renown would be higher. At 4,942 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Falcon (268 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 202 more horse power than 1952 Triumph Renown. (66 HP @ 4200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1952 Triumph Renown. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Falcon weights approximately 18 kg more than 1952 Triumph Renown. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Ford Falcon (420 Nm @ 3750 RPM) has 273 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Triumph Renown. (147 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2000 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Triumph Renown.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Falcon | 1952 Triumph Renown | |
| Make | Ford | Triumph |
| Model | Falcon | Renown |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1952 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4942 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 66 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 4200 RPM |
| Torque | 420 Nm | 147 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 85 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 76.2 mm | 92 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.1:1 | 9.0:1 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 1280 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4450 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1610 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2750 mm |
