2004 Ford Econovan vs. 1963 Rover 2000
To start off, 2004 Ford Econovan is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Rover 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Rover 2000 would be higher. At 1,978 cc (4 cylinders), 1963 Rover 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Rover 2000 (91 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 1 more horse power than 2004 Ford Econovan. (90 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1963 Rover 2000 should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Econovan. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Econovan weights approximately 84 kg more than 1963 Rover 2000.
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, 1963 Rover 2000 (150 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 12 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Ford Econovan. (138 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 1963 Rover 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Ford Econovan.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Econovan | 1963 Rover 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Econovan | 2000 |
Year Released | 2004 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1789 cc | 1978 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 90 HP | 91 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 138 Nm | 150 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 2750 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1296 kg | 1212 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 4560 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1640 mm | 1680 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1870 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2630 mm |