1962 Austin A 60 vs. 2005 Mitsubishi Colt
To start off, 2005 Mitsubishi Colt is newer by 43 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 2,972 cc, 2005 Mitsubishi Colt is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Mitsubishi Colt (179 HP) has 140 more horse power than 1962 Austin A 60. (39 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Mitsubishi Colt should accelerate faster than 1962 Austin A 60. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Mitsubishi Colt weights approximately 502 kg more than 1962 Austin A 60. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 Mitsubishi Colt (255 Nm) has 168 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Austin A 60. (87 Nm). This means 2005 Mitsubishi Colt will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Austin A 60.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin A 60 | 2005 Mitsubishi Colt | |
Make | Austin | Mitsubishi |
Model | A 60 | Colt |
Year Released | 1962 | 2005 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1487 cc | 2972 cc |
Horse Power | 39 HP | 179 HP |
Torque | 87 Nm | 255 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 23.0:1 | 9.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1118 kg | 1620 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2970 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 45 L | 95 L |