2005 Ford Ranger vs. 1952 Holden FX
To start off, 2005 Ford Ranger is newer by 53 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Ford Ranger (86 HP) has 35 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Ford Ranger weights approximately 242 kg more than 1952 Holden FX. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2005 Ford Ranger (137 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 1 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Holden FX. (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2005 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Holden FX.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Ford Ranger | 1952 Holden FX | |
Make | Ford | Holden |
Model | Ranger | FX |
Year Released | 2005 | 1952 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1758 cc | 2166 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 86 HP | 51 HP |
Torque | 137 Nm | 136 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1212 kg | 970 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2990 mm | 2620 mm |