1954 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1990 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1990 Ford Mustang is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 2,443 cc (4 cylinders), 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 1990 Ford Mustang. (89 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 1990 Ford Mustang. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 280 kg more than 1990 Ford Mustang. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 8 more torque (in Nm) than 1990 Ford Mustang. (176 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1990 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
| 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford | 1990 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
| Model | Tickford | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1954 | 1990 |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 2301 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 89 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 176 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1250 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4570 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1330 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2560 mm |
