2004 Mazda 3 vs. 1967 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2004 Mazda 3 is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 1,998 cc (6 cylinders), 1967 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mazda 3 (104 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 15 more horse power than 1967 Triumph 2000. (89 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1967 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mazda 3 weights approximately 70 kg more than 1967 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, 2004 Mazda 3 (230 Nm @ 1750 RPM) has 72 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2004 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Mazda 3 | 1967 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Mazda | Triumph |
| Model | 3 | 2000 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1967 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1595 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 104 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 230 Nm | 158 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1750 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 75 mm | 74.8 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88.3 mm | 76 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 18.3:1 | 9.3:1 |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1240 kg | 1170 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 64 L |
