2004 Caterham 7 vs. 1967 Ford 12 M
To start off, 2004 Caterham 7 is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Ford 12 M. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Ford 12 M would be higher. At 2,261 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Caterham 7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Caterham 7 (200 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 156 more horse power than 1967 Ford 12 M. (44 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 1967 Ford 12 M. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1967 Ford 12 M weights approximately 312 kg more than 2004 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, 2004 Caterham 7 (224 Nm @ 5750 RPM) has 144 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Ford 12 M. (80 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2004 Caterham 7 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Ford 12 M.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Caterham 7 | 1967 Ford 12 M | |
| Make | Caterham | Ford |
| Model | 7 | 12 M |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1967 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2261 cc | 1183 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 200 HP | 44 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Torque | 224 Nm | 80 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5750 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 540 kg | 852 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3310 mm | 4320 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1610 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1150 mm | 1410 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2230 mm | 2530 mm |
