2003 Ford Mustang vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2003 Ford Mustang is newer by 40 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 4,599 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Mustang (400 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 311 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford Mustang weights approximately 310 kg more than 1963 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 Mustang (556 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 398 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Ford Mustang | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Ford | Triumph |
| Model | Mustang | 2000 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4599 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5750 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 556 Nm | 158 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 90.2 mm | 74.8 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 90 mm | 76 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.5:1 | 9.3:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1480 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 64 L |
