1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2004 Mazda 3
To start off, 2004 Mazda 3 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 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 6 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 3. (99 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 3. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 444 kg more than 2004 Mazda 3. 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 39 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 3. (145 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2004 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Mazda |
Model | Tickford | 3 |
Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1598 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 105 HP | 99 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 184 Nm | 145 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1086 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2650 mm |