1956 GAZ M-20 vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1956 GAZ M-20. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1956 GAZ M-20 would be higher. At 2,120 cc (4 cylinders), 1956 GAZ M-20 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 19 more horse power than 1956 GAZ M-20. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1956 GAZ M-20. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1956 GAZ M-20 weights approximately 720 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1956 GAZ M-20 (125 Nm @ 2200 RPM) has 23 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1956 GAZ M-20 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 1956 GAZ M-20 | 2002 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | GAZ | MCC |
| Model | M-20 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 1956 | 2002 |
| Engine Size | 2120 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 125 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2200 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1460 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 1810 mm |
