2009 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1963 Triumph 2000
To start off, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover 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 3,630 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover (268 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 138 more horse power than 1963 Triumph 2000. (130 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1963 Triumph 2000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 1522 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 Land Rover Range Rover (641 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 443 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Triumph 2000. (198 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2009 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Land Rover Range Rover | 1963 Triumph 2000 | |
| Make | Land Rover | Triumph |
| Model | Range Rover | 2000 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3630 cc | 2498 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 268 HP | 130 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 641 Nm | 198 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 81 mm | 74.8 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88 mm | 95 mm |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2717 kg | 1195 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4980 mm | 4420 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1930 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2700 mm |
