1964 Citroen Ak 350 vs. 1998 Fiat Bravo
To start off, 1998 Fiat Bravo is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Citroen Ak 350. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Citroen Ak 350 would be higher. At 1,908 cc (5 cylinders), 1998 Fiat Bravo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1998 Fiat Bravo (152 HP) has 130 more horse power than 1964 Citroen Ak 350. (22 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1998 Fiat Bravo should accelerate faster than 1964 Citroen Ak 350. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1998 Fiat Bravo weights approximately 585 kg more than 1964 Citroen Ak 350. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 1998 Fiat Bravo (186 Nm @ 3750 RPM) has 145 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Citroen Ak 350. (41 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 1998 Fiat Bravo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Citroen Ak 350.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Citroen Ak 350 | 1998 Fiat Bravo | |
| Make | Citroen | Fiat |
| Model | Ak 350 | Bravo |
| Year Released | 1964 | 1998 |
| Engine Size | 602 cc | 1908 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 22 HP | 152 HP |
| Torque | 41 Nm | 186 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 3750 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 7.5:1 | 10.7:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 605 kg | 1190 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3610 mm | 4040 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1490 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2410 mm | 2670 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 60 L |
