2008 Ford Ranger vs. 1966 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2008 Ford Ranger is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 2,297 cc (4 cylinders), 2008 Ford Ranger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Ford Ranger (143 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 52 more horse power than 1966 Triumph 2000. (91 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2008 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1966 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Triumph 2000 weights approximately 60 kg more than 2008 Ford Ranger.
Let's talk about torque, 2008 Ford Ranger (209 Nm @ 3750 RPM) has 51 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2008 Ford Ranger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
2008 Ford Ranger | 1966 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Ford | Triumph |
Model | Ranger | 2000 |
Year Released | 2008 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2297 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 91 HP |
Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 209 Nm | 158 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 9.3:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 3 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1110 kg | 1170 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4820 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1690 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 64 L |