1952 Austin A 40 vs. 1998 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 46 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 5,666 cc (8 cylinders), 1998 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1998 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 552 kg more than 1952 Austin A 40.
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. Let's talk about torque, 1998 Chevrolet Camaro (468 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 388 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin A 40. (80 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 1998 Chevrolet Camaro 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 | 1998 Chevrolet Camaro | |
| Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
| Model | A 40 | Camaro |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1998 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 5666 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 38 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 80 Nm | 468 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2300 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 65.5 mm | 99 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 89 mm | 92 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 972 kg | 1524 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 4920 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1620 mm | 1310 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 2570 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 48 L | 57 L |
