1952 Austin A 40 vs. 2009 Nissan Cube
To start off, 2009 Nissan Cube is newer by 57 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 1,798 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Nissan Cube is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Nissan Cube (120 HP) has 71 more horse power than 1952 Austin A 40. (49 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Cube 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, 2009 Nissan Cube, 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, 2009 Nissan Cube (127 Nm) has 44 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin A 40. (83 Nm). This means 2009 Nissan Cube 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 | 2009 Nissan Cube | |
Make | Austin | Nissan |
Model | A 40 | Cube |
Year Released | 1952 | 2009 |
Body Type | Convertible | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1200 cc | 1798 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 49 HP | 120 HP |
Torque | 83 Nm | 127 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4060 mm | 4790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1620 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 2640 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 34 L | 82 L |