1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1996 Ford Mondeo
To start off, 1996 Ford Mondeo is newer by 44 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, 1996 Ford Mondeo (113 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Ford Mondeo 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 208 kg more than 1996 Ford Mondeo.
Let's talk about torque, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Ford Mondeo. (160 Nm @ 3750 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Ford Mondeo.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 1996 Ford Mondeo | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
| Model | Tickford | Mondeo |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1996 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1794 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 113 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5750 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 160 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3750 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1322 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4680 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1750 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2710 mm |
