1964 Austin A 110 vs. 2002 Jaguar XJ

To start off, 2002 Jaguar XJ is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Austin A 110. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Austin A 110 would be higher. At 4,196 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jaguar XJ (301 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 181 more horse power than 1964 Austin A 110. (120 HP @ 4750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 1964 Austin A 110. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 196 kg more than 1964 Austin A 110. 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, 2002 Jaguar XJ (541 Nm) has 319 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Austin A 110. (222 Nm). This means 2002 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Austin A 110. 2002 Jaguar XJ has automatic transmission and 1964 Austin A 110 has manual transmission. 1964 Austin A 110 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2002 Jaguar XJ will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: