1965 Austin A 40 vs. 2001 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2001 Toyota Tundra is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 4,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2001 Toyota Tundra is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2001 Toyota Tundra (245 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 198 more horse power than 1965 Austin A 40. (47 HP @ 5100 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2001 Toyota Tundra should accelerate faster than 1965 Austin A 40.
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, 2001 Toyota Tundra (427 Nm) has 346 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Austin A 40. (81 Nm). This means 2001 Toyota Tundra will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1965 Austin A 40 | 2001 Toyota Tundra | |
| Make | Austin | Toyota |
| Model | A 40 | Tundra |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2001 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1098 cc | 4700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 47 HP | 245 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5100 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 81 Nm | 427 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 5530 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1920 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1800 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 3270 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 29 L | 45 L |
