2003 Caterham 7 vs. 1968 Ford 17
To start off, 2003 Caterham 7 is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Ford 17. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Ford 17 would be higher. At 2,293 cc (6 cylinders), 1968 Ford 17 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Caterham 7 (160 HP @ 7500 RPM) has 37 more horse power than 1968 Ford 17. (123 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 1968 Ford 17. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Ford 17 weights approximately 620 kg more than 2003 Caterham 7.
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, 1968 Ford 17 (185 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 9 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Caterham 7. (176 Nm @ 5750 RPM). This means 1968 Ford 17 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Caterham 7.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Caterham 7 | 1968 Ford 17 | |
| Make | Caterham | Ford |
| Model | 7 | 17 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1968 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1794 cc | 2293 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 160 HP | 123 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 176 Nm | 185 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5750 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 500 kg | 1120 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 810 mm | 1480 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2230 mm | 2710 mm |
