1954 Austin A 40 vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 48 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1954 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1954 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 1,200 cc (4 cylinders), 1954 Austin A 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 29 more horse power than 1954 Austin A 40. (41 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1954 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1954 Austin A 40 weights approximately 290 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
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, 2002 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 23 more torque (in Nm) than 1954 Austin A 40. (79 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2002 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1954 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1954 Austin A 40 | 2002 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Austin | MCC |
| Model | A 40 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 1954 | 2002 |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 41 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 79 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4130 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1570 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1570 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2530 mm | 1810 mm |
