1956 Austin A 40 vs. 2001 Mazda CU-X

To start off, 2001 Mazda CU-X is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 1,970 cc, 2001 Mazda CU-X is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2001 Mazda CU-X (99 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 1956 Austin A 40. (49 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X should accelerate faster than 1956 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Mazda CU-X weights approximately 295 kg more than 1956 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1956 Austin A 40 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 Austin A 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2001 Mazda CU-X (240 Nm) has 140 more torque (in Nm) than 1956 Austin A 40. (100 Nm). This means 2001 Mazda CU-X will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1956 Austin A 40. 2001 Mazda CU-X has automatic transmission and 1956 Austin A 40 has manual transmission. 1956 Austin A 40 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2001 Mazda CU-X will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: