1964 AC Aceca vs. 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora
To start off, 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 AC Aceca would be higher. At 3,473 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora weights approximately 750 kg more than 1964 AC Aceca.
Because 1964 AC Aceca 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 1964 AC Aceca. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora, 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:
| 1964 AC Aceca | 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora | |
| Make | AC | Oldsmobile |
| Model | Aceca | Aurora |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1969 cc | 3473 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 123 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 894 kg | 1644 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4070 mm | 5230 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 1900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 2900 mm |
