1955 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2000 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (130 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 25 more horse power than 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 232 kg more than 2000 Ford Mustang.
Let's talk about torque, 2000 Ford Mustang (447 Nm) has 263 more torque (in Nm) than 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm). This means 2000 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Compare all specifications:
| 1955 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2000 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Ford |
| Model | Tickford | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1955 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 4600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 130 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 447 Nm |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1298 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4620 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1830 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2580 mm |
