1949 Austin 16 vs. 2001 Mazda CU-X

To start off, 2001 Mazda CU-X is newer by 52 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1949 Austin 16. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1949 Austin 16 would be higher. At 2,200 cc (4 cylinders), 1949 Austin 16 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2001 Mazda CU-X (99 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 36 more horse power than 1949 Austin 16. (63 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X should accelerate faster than 1949 Austin 16. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Mazda CU-X weights approximately 65 kg more than 1949 Austin 16. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1949 Austin 16 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1949 Austin 16. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2001 Mazda CU-X (240 Nm) has 93 more torque (in Nm) than 1949 Austin 16. (147 Nm). This means 2001 Mazda CU-X will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1949 Austin 16. 2001 Mazda CU-X has automatic transmission and 1949 Austin 16 has manual transmission. 1949 Austin 16 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2001 Mazda CU-X will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: