1952 Allard K2 vs. 2004 Mitsubishi Colt
To start off, 2004 Mitsubishi Colt is newer by 52 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Allard K2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Allard K2 would be higher. At 3,622 cc (8 cylinders), 1952 Allard K2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mitsubishi Colt (94 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 9 more horse power than 1952 Allard K2. (85 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mitsubishi Colt should accelerate faster than 1952 Allard K2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Allard K2 weights approximately 135 kg more than 2004 Mitsubishi Colt.
Because 1952 Allard K2 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 1952 Allard K2. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Mitsubishi Colt, 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:
| 1952 Allard K2 | 2004 Mitsubishi Colt | |
| Make | Allard | Mitsubishi |
| Model | K2 | Colt |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3622 cc | 1499 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 85 HP | 94 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1200 kg | 1065 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4270 mm | 3880 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2610 mm |
