1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2007 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2007 Jaguar XJ is newer by 55 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 2,722 cc (6 cylinders), 2007 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Jaguar XJ (204 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2007 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 129 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, 2007 Jaguar XJ (436 Nm @ 1900 RPM) has 252 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2007 Jaguar XJ 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 | 2007 Jaguar XJ | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Jaguar |
Model | Tickford | XJ |
Year Released | 1952 | 2007 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2441 cc | 2722 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 105 HP | 204 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 184 Nm | 436 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 1900 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1659 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 5100 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1870 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 3040 mm |