2000 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 3,946 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover (187 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 98 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 920 kg more than 1963 Triumph 2000. 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 Land Rover Range Rover (321 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 163 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2000 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Land Rover Range Rover | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Land Rover | Triumph |
Model | Range Rover | 2000 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3946 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 187 HP | 89 HP |
Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 321 Nm | 158 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2090 kg | 1170 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4720 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1820 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2700 mm |