1952 Alfa Romeo 6C vs. 2004 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 52 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Alfa Romeo 6C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Alfa Romeo 6C would be higher. At 2,443 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Alfa Romeo 6C is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1952 Alfa Romeo 6C (104 HP) has 34 more horse power than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Alfa Romeo 6C should accelerate faster than 2004 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Alfa Romeo 6C weights approximately 660 kg more than 2004 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Alfa Romeo 6C | 2004 MCC Crossblade | |
Make | Alfa Romeo | MCC |
Model | 6C | Crossblade |
Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
Engine Size | 2443 cc | 599 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 104 HP | 70 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1400 kg | 740 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 2630 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 1810 mm |