1951 Austin A 40 vs. 2000 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 1,590 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 59 more horse power than 1951 Austin A 40. (38 HP @ 4300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1951 Austin A 40.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2000 Chevrolet Tracker (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 59 more torque (in Nm) than 1951 Austin A 40. (80 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 2000 Chevrolet Tracker will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1951 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1951 Austin A 40 | 2000 Chevrolet Tracker | |
| Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
| Model | A 40 | Tracker |
| Year Released | 1951 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 1590 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 38 HP | 97 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4300 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 80 Nm | 139 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2300 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 4140 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1620 mm | 1690 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 2210 mm |
