1952 Austin A 40 vs. 2008 Renault Clio
To start off, 2008 Renault Clio is newer by 56 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 1,199 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 15 kg more than 2008 Renault Clio.
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, 2008 Renault Clio, 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, 2008 Renault Clio (105 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 26 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin A 40. (79 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2008 Renault Clio 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 | 2008 Renault Clio | |
| Make | Austin | Renault |
| Model | A 40 | Clio |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2008 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1199 cc | 1149 cc |
| Horse Power | 41 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 79 Nm | 105 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 7.2:1 | 9.6:1 |
| Top Speed | 113 km/hour | 165 km/hour |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1000 kg | 985 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4060 mm | 3990 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1500 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 2480 mm |
