1963 AC Cobra vs. 2001 Toyota RSC
To start off, 2001 Toyota RSC is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 AC Cobra. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 AC Cobra would be higher. At 4,727 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 AC Cobra is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 AC Cobra (271 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 77 more horse power than 2001 Toyota RSC. (194 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1963 AC Cobra should accelerate faster than 2001 Toyota RSC. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Toyota RSC weights approximately 346 kg more than 1963 AC Cobra.
Because 2001 Toyota RSC is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1963 AC Cobra. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Toyota RSC will offer significantly more control. 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, 1963 AC Cobra (423 Nm) has 139 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Toyota RSC. (284 Nm). This means 1963 AC Cobra will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Toyota RSC.
Compare all specifications:
1963 AC Cobra | 2001 Toyota RSC | |
Make | AC | Toyota |
Model | Cobra | RSC |
Year Released | 1963 | 2001 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4727 cc | 4164 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 5 valves |
Horse Power | 271 HP | 194 HP |
Engine RPM | 5750 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 423 Nm | 284 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1050 kg | 1396 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3850 mm | 4120 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1560 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1250 mm | 1860 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 2510 mm |