1961 Austin A 40 vs. 2005 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 44 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 948 cc (4 cylinders), 1961 Austin A 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 34 more horse power than 1961 Austin A 40. (36 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1961 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1961 Austin A 40 weights approximately 16 kg more than 2005 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, 2005 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 34 more torque (in Nm) than 1961 Austin A 40. (68 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2005 MCC Crossblade 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 | 2005 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Austin | MCC |
| Model | A 40 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 1961 | 2005 |
| Engine Size | 948 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 36 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 68 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 760 kg | 744 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3670 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 1810 mm |
