2002 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1953 Triumph Mayflower
To start off, 2002 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1953 Triumph Mayflower. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1953 Triumph Mayflower would be higher. At 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 1146 kg more than 1953 Triumph Mayflower.
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, 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (461 Nm) has 382 more torque (in Nm) than 1953 Triumph Mayflower. (79 Nm). This means 2002 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1953 Triumph Mayflower.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Chevrolet Camaro | 1953 Triumph Mayflower | |
Make | Chevrolet | Triumph |
Model | Camaro | Mayflower |
Year Released | 2002 | 1953 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5700 cc | 1247 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 37 HP |
Torque | 461 Nm | 79 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2100 kg | 954 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 3920 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1580 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1580 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2110 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 45 L |