1952 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2010 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2010 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 58 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, 2010 Mazda RX-8 (232 HP @ 8500 RPM) has 127 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 140 kg more than 2010 Mazda RX-8.
Let's talk about torque, 2010 Mazda RX-8 (215 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 31 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda RX-8 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 | 2010 Mazda RX-8 | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Mazda |
| Model | Tickford | RX-8 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2441 cc | 1300 cc |
| Engine Type | in-line | dual-disk rotary |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 232 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 8500 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 215 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1390 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4460 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1341 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2700 mm |
