2003 Ford C-MAX vs. 1966 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2003 Ford C-MAX is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford C-MAX (128 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 37 more horse power than 1966 Triumph 2000. (91 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford C-MAX should accelerate faster than 1966 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford C-MAX weights approximately 252 kg more than 1966 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, 2003 Ford C-MAX (175 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Ford C-MAX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Ford C-MAX | 1966 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Triumph |
Model | C-MAX | 2000 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1753 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 128 HP | 91 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 175 Nm | 158 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83 mm | 74.7 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 83.1 mm | 76 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 9.3:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1422 kg | 1170 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4340 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1600 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 64 L |