1962 Austin A 40 vs. 2002 Chevrolet Tracker
To start off, 2002 Chevrolet Tracker is newer by 40 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 1,590 cc (4 cylinders), 2002 Chevrolet Tracker is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Chevrolet Tracker (97 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 61 more horse power than 1962 Austin A 40. (36 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Chevrolet Tracker should accelerate faster than 1962 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 Tracker (139 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 71 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Austin A 40. (68 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2002 Chevrolet Tracker 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 | 2002 Chevrolet Tracker | |
| Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
| Model | A 40 | Tracker |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2002 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 948 cc | 1590 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 36 HP | 97 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 68 Nm | 139 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 3670 mm | 3860 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1700 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2210 mm |
