1951 Bristol 400 vs. 2009 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2009 Ford Ecosport is newer by 58 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Bristol 400. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Bristol 400 would be higher. At 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Ford Ecosport is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 64 more horse power than 1951 Bristol 400. (79 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1951 Bristol 400.
Because 1951 Bristol 400 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 1951 Bristol 400. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Ford Ecosport, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1951 Bristol 400 | 2009 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Bristol | Ford |
Model | 400 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1951 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1971 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 79 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4650 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2490 mm |