1952 Buick 40 vs. 2010 Renault Megane
To start off, 2010 Renault Megane is newer by 58 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, 2010 Renault Megane (221 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 103 more horse power than 1952 Buick 40. (118 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Renault Megane should accelerate faster than 1952 Buick 40.
Because 1952 Buick 40 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1952 Buick 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Renault Megane, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2010 Renault Megane (300 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 8 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Buick 40. (292 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2010 Renault Megane will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Buick 40.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Buick 40 | 2010 Renault Megane | |
Make | Buick | Renault |
Model | 40 | Megane |
Year Released | 1952 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4066 cc | 1997 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 118 HP | 221 HP |
Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 292 Nm | 300 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 78.6 mm | 82.7 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 104.8 mm | 93 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 2030 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3090 mm | 2630 mm |