1962 Austin A 60 vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Austin A 60. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Austin A 60 would be higher. At 1,622 cc (4 cylinders), 1962 Austin A 60 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Ecosport (94 HP) has 34 more horse power than 1962 Austin A 60. (60 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1962 Austin A 60.
Because 1962 Austin A 60 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 60. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin A 60 | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Austin | Ford |
Model | A 60 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1622 cc | 1000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 60 HP | 94 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1530 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2490 mm |