1953 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 47 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 3,946 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover (187 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 82 more horse power than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 560 kg more than 1953 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, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover (321 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 136 more torque (in Nm) than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. (185 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2000 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Compare all specifications:
1953 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2000 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Land Rover |
Model | Tickford | Range Rover |
Year Released | 1953 | 2000 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2443 cc | 3946 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 105 HP | 187 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4750 RPM |
Torque | 185 Nm | 321 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 2090 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4720 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1900 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1820 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2750 mm |