1964 Austin A 40 vs. 1982 Cadillac Cimarron
To start off, 1982 Cadillac Cimarron is newer by 18 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 2,844 cc (6 cylinders), 1982 Cadillac Cimarron is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Cadillac Cimarron (123 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 76 more horse power than 1964 Austin A 40. (47 HP @ 5100 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1982 Cadillac Cimarron should accelerate faster than 1964 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1982 Cadillac Cimarron weights approximately 392 kg more than 1964 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1964 Austin A 40 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 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Cadillac Cimarron, 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 40 | 1982 Cadillac Cimarron | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 40 | Cimarron |
| Year Released | 1964 | 1982 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1098 cc | 2844 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 47 HP | 123 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5100 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 760 kg | 1152 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 4530 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1660 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2580 mm |
