1952 Buick 40 vs. 1996 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Buick 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Buick 40 would be higher. At 4,066 cc (8 cylinders), 1952 Buick 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro (200 HP) has 82 more horse power than 1952 Buick 40. (118 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 1952 Buick 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Buick 40 weights approximately 135 kg more than 1996 Chevrolet Camaro.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro (305 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 13 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Buick 40. (292 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1996 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Buick 40.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Buick 40 | 1996 Chevrolet Camaro | |
Make | Buick | Chevrolet |
Model | 40 | Camaro |
Year Released | 1952 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4066 cc | 3791 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 118 HP | 200 HP |
Torque | 292 Nm | 305 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 1500 kg |
Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1890 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3090 mm | 2570 mm |