1964 Austin A 40 vs. 2010 Nissan Pixo
To start off, 2010 Nissan Pixo is newer by 46 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 1,098 cc (4 cylinders), 1964 Austin A 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Nissan Pixo (68 HP) has 21 more horse power than 1964 Austin A 40. (47 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Nissan Pixo should accelerate faster 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, 2010 Nissan Pixo, 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 | 2010 Nissan Pixo | |
Make | Austin | Nissan |
Model | A 40 | Pixo |
Year Released | 1964 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1098 cc | 996 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 47 HP | 68 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 3580 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1680 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2360 mm |