1952 Austin A vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 50 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, 1952 Austin A (124 HP) has 54 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Austin A should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin A weights approximately 1235 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 @ 2200 RPM) has 186 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1952 Austin A will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Austin A | 2002 MCC Crossblade | |
Make | Austin | MCC |
Model | A | Crossblade |
Year Released | 1952 | 2002 |
Engine Size | 3992 cc | 599 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 124 HP | 70 HP |
Torque | 288 Nm | 102 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2200 RPM | 3210 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1975 kg | 740 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 2630 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 1810 mm |