1953 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2004 Mazda 2
To start off, 2004 Mazda 2 is newer by 51 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 2,443 cc (4 cylinders), 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 2. (67 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mazda 2 weights approximately 255 kg more than 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Let's talk about torque, 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford (185 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 25 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 2. (160 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 2.
Compare all specifications:
| 1953 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2004 Mazda 2 | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Mazda |
| Model | Tickford | 2 |
| Year Released | 1953 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 1399 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 67 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 185 Nm | 160 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1785 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3930 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1550 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2680 mm |
