2000 Ford Falcon vs. 1966 Renault 4
To start off, 2000 Ford Falcon is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Renault 4. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Renault 4 would be higher. At 4,940 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Falcon (270 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 237 more horse power than 1966 Renault 4. (33 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1966 Renault 4. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford Falcon weights approximately 625 kg more than 1966 Renault 4. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2000 Ford Falcon is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2000 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1966 Renault 4, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Falcon | 1966 Renault 4 | |
| Make | Ford | Renault |
| Model | Falcon | 4 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4940 cc | 746 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 270 HP | 33 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1275 kg | 650 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 3670 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1490 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2410 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 60 L |
