1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 52 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 4,599 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Ford Mustang (300 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 195 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Mustang weights approximately 35 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (434 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 250 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Mustang 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 | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
| Model | Tickford | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 4599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 3 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 300 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5750 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 434 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1565 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4780 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1410 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2760 mm |
