1964 Austin A 60 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 60. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Austin A 60 would be higher. At 1,622 cc (4 cylinders), 1964 Austin A 60 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 10 more horse power than 1964 Austin A 60. (60 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1964 Austin A 60. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Austin A 60 weights approximately 380 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
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 60 (122 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 20 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1964 Austin A 60 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Austin A 60 | 2002 MCC Crossblade | |
Make | Austin | MCC |
Model | A 60 | Crossblade |
Year Released | 1964 | 2002 |
Engine Size | 1622 cc | 599 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 60 HP | 70 HP |
Torque | 122 Nm | 102 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 3210 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1120 kg | 740 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 2630 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1530 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 1810 mm |