1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2000 Mercedes-Benz E
To start off, 2000 Mercedes-Benz E is newer by 48 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, 2000 Mercedes-Benz E (161 HP @ 5300 RPM) has 56 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Mercedes-Benz E should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Mercedes-Benz E weights approximately 70 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, 2000 Mercedes-Benz E (230 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 46 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2000 Mercedes-Benz E 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 | 2000 Mercedes-Benz E | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Mercedes-Benz |
| Model | Tickford | E |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 161 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5300 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 230 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1600 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4820 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2970 mm |
