1964 Austin A 40 vs. 1999 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 1999 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 35 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 2,399 cc (4 cylinders), 1999 Chevrolet Malibu is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1999 Chevrolet Malibu weights approximately 646 kg more than 1964 Austin A 40.
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, 1999 Chevrolet Malibu, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1999 Chevrolet Malibu (203 Nm) has 121 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Austin A 40. (82 Nm). This means 1999 Chevrolet Malibu will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Austin A 40 | 1999 Chevrolet Malibu | |
Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
Model | A 40 | Malibu |
Year Released | 1964 | 1999 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1098 cc | 2399 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 47 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 82 Nm | 203 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 760 kg | 1406 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 4840 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1770 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2720 mm |