1961 Austin A 40 vs. 2009 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2009 Ford Mustang is newer by 48 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 4,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Ford Mustang (395 HP @ 5300 RPM) has 359 more horse power than 1961 Austin A 40. (36 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster 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, 2009 Ford Mustang (240 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 172 more torque (in Nm) than 1961 Austin A 40. (68 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2009 Ford Mustang 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 | 2009 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Austin | Ford |
Model | A 40 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1961 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 948 cc | 4600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 36 HP | 395 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5300 RPM |
Torque | 68 Nm | 240 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3670 mm | 4780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2740 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 45 L | 55 L |