1954 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2002 MCC Smart
To start off, 2002 MCC Smart 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 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 25 more horse power than 2002 MCC Smart. (80 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Smart. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 714 kg more than 2002 MCC Smart. 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 74 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Smart. (110 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
| 1954 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2002 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | MCC |
| Model | Tickford | Smart |
| Year Released | 1954 | 2002 |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 80 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 110 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 816 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3430 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1200 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2370 mm |
