1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee
To start off, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee 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 3,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee (195 HP @ 3800 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee weights approximately 234 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 Jeep Grand Cherokee (312 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 128 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee 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 Jeep Grand Cherokee | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Jeep |
| Model | Tickford | Grand Cherokee |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 3966 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 195 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 312 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1764 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4610 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1840 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1770 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2700 mm |
