1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1981 Ford Falcon
To start off, 1981 Ford Falcon is newer by 29 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 3,273 cc (6 cylinders), 1981 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1981 Ford Falcon (109 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1981 Ford Falcon 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 160 kg more than 1981 Ford Falcon.
Let's talk about torque, 1981 Ford Falcon (228 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 44 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1981 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 1981 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
| Model | Tickford | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1981 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 3273 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 109 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 228 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1370 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4740 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1870 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2830 mm |
