1964 Austin Mini Cooper vs. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Austin Mini Cooper. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Austin Mini Cooper would be higher. At 5,670 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 538 kg more than 1964 Austin Mini Cooper.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Camaro 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 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1964 Austin Mini Cooper, 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, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro (454 Nm) has 358 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Austin Mini Cooper. (96 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Austin Mini Cooper.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Austin Mini Cooper | 2000 Chevrolet Camaro | |
Make | Austin | Chevrolet |
Model | Mini Cooper | Camaro |
Year Released | 1964 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1275 cc | 5670 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 76 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 96 Nm | 454 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 650 kg | 1188 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3060 mm | 4910 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1420 mm | 1890 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1310 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2040 mm | 2570 mm |