1954 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2002 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2002 Jaguar XJ is newer by 48 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 3,248 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jaguar XJ (240 HP @ 6350 RPM) has 135 more horse power than 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 180 kg more than 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2002 Jaguar XJ (316 Nm @ 4350 RPM) has 132 more torque (in Nm) than 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2002 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Compare all specifications:
| 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2002 Jaguar XJ | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Jaguar |
| Model | Tickford | XJ |
| Year Released | 1954 | 2002 |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 3248 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 240 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6350 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 316 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4350 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1710 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 5160 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1310 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2880 mm |
