1956 Austin-Healey Tickford vs. 2010 Acura CSX
To start off, 2010 Acura CSX is newer by 54 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, 2010 Acura CSX (155 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Acura CSX should accelerate faster than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 217 kg more than 2010 Acura CSX.
Let's talk about torque, 2010 Acura CSX (188 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 4 more torque (in Nm) than 1956 Austin-Healey Tickford. (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2010 Acura CSX 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 | 2010 Acura CSX | |
| Make | Austin-Healey | Acura |
| Model | Tickford | CSX |
| Year Released | 1956 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2443 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 155 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 184 Nm | 188 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1530 kg | 1313 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4544 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1752 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1435 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2700 mm |
