2006 Chevrolet Kodiak vs. 1981 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak is newer by 25 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1981 Ford Falcon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1981 Ford Falcon would be higher. At 6,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak is equipped with a bigger engine.
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, 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak (820 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 592 more torque (in Nm) than 1981 Ford Falcon. (228 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1981 Ford Falcon.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak | 1981 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Ford |
| Model | Kodiak | Falcon |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1981 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6600 cc | 3273 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 109 HP |
| Torque | 820 Nm | 228 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1600 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Width | 2000 mm | 1870 mm |
