2000 Ford Puma vs. 1953 Talbot T 26
To start off, 2000 Ford Puma is newer by 47 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1953 Talbot T 26. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1953 Talbot T 26 would be higher. At 4,482 cc (6 cylinders), 1953 Talbot T 26 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1953 Talbot T 26 (197 HP @ 4300 RPM) has 44 more horse power than 2000 Ford Puma. (153 HP @ 7000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1953 Talbot T 26 should accelerate faster than 2000 Ford Puma. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1953 Talbot T 26 weights approximately 335 kg more than 2000 Ford Puma. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1953 Talbot T 26 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 1953 Talbot T 26. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Ford Puma, 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 Puma | 1953 Talbot T 26 | |
| Make | Ford | Talbot |
| Model | Puma | T 26 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1953 |
| Engine Size | 1679 cc | 4482 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 153 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 4300 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1275 kg | 1610 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3990 mm | 4860 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1890 mm |
