1961 Austin A 40 vs. 2002 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2002 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1961 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1961 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 1340 kg more than 1961 Austin A 40.
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, 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (461 Nm) has 393 more torque (in Nm) than 1961 Austin A 40. (68 Nm). This means 2002 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1961 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1961 Austin A 40 | 2002 Chevrolet Camaro | |
| Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
| Model | A 40 | Camaro |
| Year Released | 1961 | 2002 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 948 cc | 5700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 36 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 68 Nm | 461 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 760 kg | 2100 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3670 mm | 4920 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1310 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 45 L | 64 L |
