1953 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2002 Volvo XC90
To start off, 2002 Volvo XC90 is newer by 49 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 2,519 cc (5 cylinders), 2002 Volvo XC90 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Volvo XC90 (197 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 92 more horse power than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Volvo XC90 should accelerate faster than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 79 kg more than 2002 Volvo XC90.
Let's talk about torque, 2002 Volvo XC90 (320 Nm @ 1500 RPM) has 135 more torque (in Nm) than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford. (185 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2002 Volvo XC90 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 | 2002 Volvo XC90 | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Volvo |
| Model | Tickford | XC90 |
| Year Released | 1953 | 2002 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 2519 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 185 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 1500 RPM |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4800 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2860 mm |
