1962 Austin A 40 vs. 1996 Volkswagen Golf
To start off, 1996 Volkswagen Golf is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 1,896 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Volkswagen Golf is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Volkswagen Golf (115 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 79 more horse power than 1962 Austin A 40. (36 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Volkswagen Golf should accelerate faster than 1962 Austin A 40.
Because 1962 Austin A 40 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1962 Austin A 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Volkswagen Golf, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 1996 Volkswagen Golf (165 Nm) has 97 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Austin A 40. (68 Nm). This means 1996 Volkswagen Golf will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin A 40 | 1996 Volkswagen Golf | |
Make | Austin | Volkswagen |
Model | A 40 | Golf |
Year Released | 1962 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 948 cc | 1896 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 36 HP | 115 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 68 Nm | 165 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 64.6 mm | 82.6 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 76.2 mm | 92.7 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 8.3:1 | 10.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Length | 3670 mm | 4080 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2480 mm |