1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1980 Nissan Bluebird
To start off, 1980 Nissan Bluebird is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 2,441 cc (4 cylinders), 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Nissan Bluebird (120 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 15 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1980 Nissan Bluebird should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 260 kg more than 1980 Nissan Bluebird.
Let's talk about torque, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Nissan Bluebird. (170 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Nissan Bluebird.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 1980 Nissan Bluebird | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Nissan |
Model | Tickford | Bluebird |
Year Released | 1952 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2441 cc | 2393 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 105 HP | 120 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 184 Nm | 170 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1270 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4360 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2530 mm |