1956 AC Aceca-Bristol vs. 2000 Pininfarina Metrocubo
To start off, 2000 Pininfarina Metrocubo is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol would be higher. At 1,971 cc (6 cylinders), 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol 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 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Pininfarina Metrocubo, 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. 2000 Pininfarina Metrocubo has automatic transmission and 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol has manual transmission. 1956 AC Aceca-Bristol will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Pininfarina Metrocubo will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1956 AC Aceca-Bristol | 2000 Pininfarina Metrocubo | |
Make | AC | Pininfarina |
Model | Aceca-Bristol | Metrocubo |
Year Released | 1956 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1971 cc | 505 cc |
Engine Type | in-line | electric |
Horse Power | 125 HP | 0 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |