1952 Austin A 40 vs. 1983 Autobianchi A 112
To start off, 1983 Autobianchi A 112 is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 1,200 cc (4 cylinders), 1952 Austin A 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin A 40 weights approximately 324 kg more than 1983 Autobianchi A 112.
Because 1952 Austin A 40 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 Austin A 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1983 Autobianchi A 112, 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 Austin A 40 | 1983 Autobianchi A 112 | |
Make | Austin | Autobianchi |
Model | A 40 | A 112 |
Year Released | 1952 | 1983 |
Body Type | Convertible | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1200 cc | 965 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 49 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 990 kg | 666 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4060 mm | 3280 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1490 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 2050 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 34 L | 30 L |