1964 Ford GT 40 vs. 2004 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 40 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Ford GT 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Ford GT 40 would be higher. At 4,195 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Ford GT 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Ford GT 40 (350 HP) has 280 more horse power than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Ford GT 40 should accelerate faster than 2004 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Ford GT 40 weights approximately 124 kg more than 2004 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2004 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Ford GT 40. (85 Nm). This means 2004 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Ford GT 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Ford GT 40 | 2004 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Ford | MCC |
| Model | GT 40 | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2004 |
| Engine Size | 4195 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 350 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 85 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 864 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4030 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1040 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2420 mm | 1810 mm |
