1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2003 Ford Econovan
To start off, 2003 Ford Econovan is newer by 51 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 15 more horse power than 2003 Ford Econovan. (90 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 2003 Ford Econovan. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 235 kg more than 2003 Ford Econovan. 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 45 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Ford Econovan. (139 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Ford Econovan.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2003 Ford Econovan | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
| Model | Tickford | Econovan |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Van |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1789 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 90 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 139 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1295 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4290 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1640 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1870 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2210 mm |
