1952 Austin A 40 vs. 2006 Cadillac STS-V
To start off, 2006 Cadillac STS-V is newer by 54 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 4,376 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac STS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (440 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 402 more horse power than 1952 Austin A 40. (38 HP @ 4300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac STS-V should accelerate faster 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, 2006 Cadillac STS-V (584 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 504 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin A 40. (80 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac STS-V 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 | 2006 Cadillac STS-V | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 40 | STS-V |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 4376 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 38 HP | 440 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4300 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 80 Nm | 584 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2300 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 4990 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1620 mm | 1480 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 2960 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 48 L | 64 L |
