2003 Ford F-250 vs. 1965 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2003 Ford F-250 is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 5,407 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Ford F-250 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford F-250 (256 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 167 more horse power than 1965 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford F-250 should accelerate faster than 1965 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford F-250 weights approximately 1180 kg more than 1965 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 F-250 (474 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 316 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Ford F-250 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Ford F-250 | 1965 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Ford | Triumph |
| Model | F-250 | 2000 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5407 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 256 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 474 Nm | 158 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2350 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5760 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1940 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3490 mm | 2700 mm |
