2009 Chevrolet HHR vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2009 Chevrolet HHR is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Triumph 2000 would be higher. At 2,498 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Triumph 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Chevrolet HHR (168 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (130 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Chevrolet HHR should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Chevrolet HHR weights approximately 275 kg more than 1963 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, 2009 Chevrolet HHR (222 Nm @ 4800 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2009 Chevrolet HHR will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Chevrolet HHR | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Triumph |
Model | HHR | 2000 |
Year Released | 2009 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2399 cc | 2498 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 130 HP |
Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 222 Nm | 198 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4800 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 88 mm | 74.8 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 98 mm | 95 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1470 kg | 1195 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3380 mm | 4420 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2700 mm |