1956 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2002 Acura CL
To start off, 2002 Acura CL is newer by 46 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 3,210 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 Acura CL is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Acura CL (260 HP @ 6900 RPM) has 155 more horse power than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Acura CL should accelerate faster than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Acura CL weights approximately 50 kg more than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2002 Acura CL (315 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 131 more torque (in Nm) than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2002 Acura CL will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford.
Compare all specifications:
| 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford | 2002 Acura CL | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Acura |
| Model | Tickford | CL |
| Year Released | 1956 | 2002 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 3210 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 260 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6900 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 315 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1580 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4880 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2580 mm |
