1952 Austin A 40 vs. 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma
To start off, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma is newer by 44 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 1,870 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma (89 HP @ 4250 RPM) has 51 more horse power than 1952 Austin A 40. (38 HP @ 4300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin A 40.
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, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma (176 Nm @ 2250 RPM) has 96 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin A 40. (80 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin A 40 | 1996 Mitsubishi Carisma | |
| Make | Austin | Mitsubishi |
| Model | A 40 | Carisma |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 1870 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 38 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4300 RPM | 4250 RPM |
| Torque | 80 Nm | 176 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2300 RPM | 2250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 4440 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1620 mm | 1410 mm |
