2004 Bristol Blenheim vs. 2000 Ford Puma
To start off, 2004 Bristol Blenheim is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford Puma. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford Puma would be higher. At 5,900 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Bristol Blenheim is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Bristol Blenheim weights approximately 120 kg more than 2000 Ford Puma.
Because 2004 Bristol Blenheim is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2004 Bristol Blenheim. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Ford Puma, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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. 2004 Bristol Blenheim has automatic transmission and 2000 Ford Puma has manual transmission. 2000 Ford Puma will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2004 Bristol Blenheim will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Bristol Blenheim | 2000 Ford Puma | |
Make | Bristol | Ford |
Model | Blenheim | Puma |
Year Released | 2004 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5900 cc | 1679 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 153 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1395 kg | 1275 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4680 mm | 3990 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1120 mm | 1320 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2450 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 105 L | 42 L |