2002 Ford Ka vs. 1967 Riley Kestrel
To start off, 2002 Ford Ka is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Riley Kestrel. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Riley Kestrel would be higher. At 1,596 cc (4 cylinders), 2002 Ford Ka is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Ford Ka (135 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 82 more horse power than 1967 Riley Kestrel. (53 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2002 Ford Ka should accelerate faster than 1967 Riley Kestrel. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Ford Ka weights approximately 248 kg more than 1967 Riley Kestrel. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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 Ford Ka (175 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 92 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Riley Kestrel. (83 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2002 Ford Ka will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Riley Kestrel.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Ford Ka | 1967 Riley Kestrel | |
Make | Ford | Riley |
Model | Ka | Kestrel |
Year Released | 2002 | 1967 |
Engine Size | 1596 cc | 1098 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 135 HP | 53 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 175 Nm | 83 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 2500 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 8.3:1 |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1136 kg | 888 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3660 mm | 3730 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1540 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2450 mm | 2380 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 42 L | 25 L |