2000 Ford Falcon vs. 1966 Nissan Cedric
To start off, 2000 Ford Falcon is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Nissan Cedric. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Nissan Cedric 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 154 more horse power than 1966 Nissan Cedric. (114 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1966 Nissan Cedric. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Falcon weights approximately 8 kg more than 1966 Nissan Cedric. 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 255 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Nissan Cedric. (165 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2000 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Nissan Cedric.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Ford Falcon | 1966 Nissan Cedric | |
Make | Ford | Nissan |
Model | Falcon | Cedric |
Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
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 | 114 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 420 Nm | 165 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 1290 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4700 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2700 mm |