1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover 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 4,392 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover (282 HP) has 177 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 912 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 Land Rover Range Rover (441 Nm) has 257 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm). This means 2004 Land Rover Range Rover 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 Land Rover Range Rover | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Land Rover |
| Model | Tickford | Range Rover |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 4392 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 282 HP |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 441 Nm |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 2442 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4960 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1930 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1870 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2890 mm |
