1964 Austin A 110 vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade

To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade 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 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Austin A 110 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Austin A 110 (120 HP) has 50 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Austin A 110 should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Austin A 110 weights approximately 864 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. 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, 1964 Austin A 110 (222 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 120 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1964 Austin A 110 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.

Compare all specifications:

1964 Austin A 110 2002 MCC Crossblade
Make Austin MCC
Model A 110 Crossblade
Year Released 1964 2002
Engine Size 2912 cc 599 cc
Engine Cylinders 6 cylinders 3 cylinders
Engine Type in-line in-line
Horse Power 120 HP 70 HP
Torque 222 Nm 102 Nm
Torque RPM 2750 RPM 3210 RPM
Fuel Type Gasoline Gasoline
Drive Type Rear Rear
Transmission Type Manual Manual
Vehicle Weight 1604 kg 740 kg
Vehicle Length 4950 mm 2630 mm
Vehicle Width 1750 mm 1630 mm
Vehicle Height 1540 mm 1520 mm
Wheelbase Size 2800 mm 1810 mm