1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1989 Nissan Micra
To start off, 1989 Nissan Micra is newer by 37 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, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 46 more horse power than 1989 Nissan Micra. (59 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 1989 Nissan Micra. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 805 kg more than 1989 Nissan Micra. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 88 more torque (in Nm) than 1989 Nissan Micra. (96 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1989 Nissan Micra.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 1989 Nissan Micra | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Nissan |
| Model | Tickford | Micra |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1989 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1235 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 59 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 96 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 725 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3770 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1570 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2310 mm |
