1964 Austin A 110 vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 39 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 53 more horse power than 2003 Ford Ecosport. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Austin A 110 should accelerate faster than 2003 Ford Ecosport.
Because 1964 Austin A 110 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 Austin A 110. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport, 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 Austin A 110 | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Austin | Ford |
| Model | A 110 | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2912 cc | 1400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 120 HP | 67 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4950 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1540 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2490 mm |
