2000 Ford Falcon vs. 1964 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2000 Ford Falcon is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Ford Falcon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Ford Falcon would be higher. At 4,940 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Ford Falcon (282 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 2000 Ford Falcon. (270 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1964 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford Falcon. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Falcon weights approximately 575 kg more than 1964 Ford Falcon.
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 Ford Falcon (420 Nm) has 176 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Ford Falcon. (244 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Ford Falcon.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Falcon | 1964 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Ford | Ford |
| Model | Falcon | Falcon |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1964 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4940 cc | 2890 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 270 HP | 282 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 420 Nm | 244 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.1:1 | 20.2:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1275 kg | 700 kg |
