1960 Austin A 40 vs. 1982 Kia Brisa
To start off, 1982 Kia Brisa is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 997 cc (4 cylinders), 1960 Austin A 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Kia Brisa (53 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 19 more horse power than 1960 Austin A 40. (34 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1982 Kia Brisa should accelerate faster than 1960 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1982 Kia Brisa weights approximately 30 kg more than 1960 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, both vehicles can yield 68 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
1960 Austin A 40 | 1982 Kia Brisa | |
Make | Austin | Kia |
Model | A 40 | Brisa |
Year Released | 1960 | 1982 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 997 cc | 985 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 34 HP | 53 HP |
Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 68 Nm | 68 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 760 kg | 790 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3670 mm | 3860 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1550 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2130 mm | 2270 mm |