In Reply to: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series posted by Will on August 28, 2017 at 00:48:43:
Was it you I spoke with on the phone yesterday?
You won't gain any horsepower or functionality going from an NAA to a a 2000 Prior. Both used the same 134 ci Red Tiger engine and I think they are both rated about 34 pto hp.
The biggest differences between an NAA and 2000 are the hydraulics and rear axles. Vane pump on the NAA vs piston pump on all models after about 1956 or so. No functional difference there but the piston pump is easily rebuildable and you can find a remote valve much easier for the 2000.
2000 rear axles are a better design - no splined hubs to wear out and they are rated to carry much more rear ballast - if that matters. Brakes? Dunno. They are both of the outboard dry drum design which Ford used from 39 till well into the 80s. And as you may know, none of these small Fords were known for good brakes.
And the NAA is a bit of an orphan in that parts for the transmission and rear end only fit 53 and 54 models where as the 2000 will interchange from 55-64.
Personally I think the 2000 is a better looking machine - I never liked the looks of the cyclops front end and of course I like Blue over Red (except for my politics).
The biggest advantage that particular 2000 has over your NAA is the power steering. Given the choice between PS and LPTO I would opt for the PS any day.
Generally, the 2000 is not enough of an upgrade that I would trade a known good NAA for an unknown 2000 with 4 sp trans. I would for one with 5 sp w/lpto.