1962 Austin A 90 vs. 2000 Holden HRT
To start off, 2000 Holden HRT is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Austin A 90. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Austin A 90 would be higher. At 5,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Holden HRT is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1962 Austin A 90 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 90. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Holden HRT, 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, 2000 Holden HRT (815 Nm) has 594 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Austin A 90. (221 Nm). This means 2000 Holden HRT will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Austin A 90.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin A 90 | 2000 Holden HRT | |
Make | Austin | Holden |
Model | A 90 | HRT |
Year Released | 1962 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2912 cc | 5000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 120 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 221 Nm | 815 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |