2002 Ford Econovan vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2002 Ford Econovan is newer by 39 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 2,498 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Triumph 2000 (130 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 2002 Ford Econovan. (90 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1963 Triumph 2000 should accelerate faster than 2002 Ford Econovan. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Ford Econovan weights approximately 100 kg more than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Let's talk about torque, 1963 Triumph 2000 (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 60 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Ford Econovan. (138 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 1963 Triumph 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Ford Econovan.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Ford Econovan | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Triumph |
Model | Econovan | 2000 |
Year Released | 2002 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1789 cc | 2498 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 90 HP | 130 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 138 Nm | 198 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1295 kg | 1195 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1640 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1870 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2700 mm |