1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1989 Rover Range Rover
To start off, 1989 Rover Range Rover 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 3,947 cc (8 cylinders), 1989 Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1989 Rover Range Rover (185 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 80 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1989 Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1989 Rover Range Rover weights approximately 456 kg more than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1989 Rover Range Rover (319 Nm @ 2600 RPM) has 135 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1989 Rover Range Rover 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 | 1989 Rover Range Rover | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Rover |
| Model | Tickford | Range Rover |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1989 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 3947 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 185 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4750 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 319 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2600 RPM |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1986 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4460 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1840 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1810 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2550 mm |
