1958 Austin A 35 vs. 1996 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1958 Austin A 35. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1958 Austin A 35 would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro (200 HP) has 166 more horse power than 1958 Austin A 35. (34 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 1958 Austin A 35. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 810 kg more than 1958 Austin A 35. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro (305 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 237 more torque (in Nm) than 1958 Austin A 35. (68 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1996 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1958 Austin A 35.
Compare all specifications:
| 1958 Austin A 35 | 1996 Chevrolet Camaro | |
| Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
| Model | A 35 | Camaro |
| Year Released | 1958 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 948 cc | 3791 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 34 HP | 200 HP |
| Torque | 68 Nm | 305 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.3:1 | 9.4:1 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 690 kg | 1500 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3470 mm | 4910 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1410 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1310 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2030 mm | 2570 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 26 L | 58 L |
