1952 Austin A vs. 2000 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2000 Ford Ranger is newer by 48 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin A would be higher. At 3,992 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Austin A is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Ranger (135 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 11 more horse power than 1952 Austin A. (124 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Ranger should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin A. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin A weights approximately 677 kg more than 2000 Ford Ranger.
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, 1952 Austin A (288 Nm) has 38 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Ford Ranger. (250 Nm). This means 1952 Austin A will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Ford Ranger.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin A | 2000 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Austin | Ford |
| Model | A | Ranger |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3992 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 124 HP | 135 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 288 Nm | 250 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1975 kg | 1298 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 4770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1740 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2800 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 34 L | 55 L |
