1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2000 Nissan Pickup
To start off, 2000 Nissan Pickup 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 2,494 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Nissan Pickup is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 2000 Nissan Pickup. (82 HP @ 4300 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 2000 Nissan Pickup. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 85 kg more than 2000 Nissan Pickup. 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 21 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Nissan Pickup. (163 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Nissan Pickup.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2000 Nissan Pickup | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Nissan |
| Model | Tickford | Pickup |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 2494 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 82 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4300 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 163 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1445 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4990 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1610 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2960 mm |
