1954 Austin A 40 vs. 2009 Nissan Cube
To start off, 2009 Nissan Cube is newer by 55 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 1,798 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Nissan Cube is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Nissan Cube (120 HP) has 79 more horse power than 1954 Austin A 40. (41 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Cube should accelerate faster than 1954 Austin A 40.
Because 1954 Austin A 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 1954 Austin A 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Cube, 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. 2009 Nissan Cube has automatic transmission and 1954 Austin A 40 has manual transmission. 1954 Austin A 40 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Nissan Cube will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1954 Austin A 40 | 2009 Nissan Cube | |
Make | Austin | Nissan |
Model | A 40 | Cube |
Year Released | 1954 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1200 cc | 1798 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 41 HP | 120 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4130 mm | 4790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1570 mm | 1620 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2530 mm | 2640 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 82 L |