1956 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste
To start off, 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 2,443 cc (4 cylinders), 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford (105 HP) has 31 more horse power than 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste. (74 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford should accelerate faster than 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 620 kg more than 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 66 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste. (118 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste.
Compare all specifications:
1956 Austin-Healey Tickford | 1980 Mitsubishi Celeste | |
Make | Austin-Healey | Mitsubishi |
Model | Tickford | Celeste |
Year Released | 1956 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2443 cc | 1410 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 105 HP | 74 HP |
Torque | 184 Nm | 118 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 910 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4160 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2350 mm |