1965 Austin A 40 vs. 2002 Mitsubishi eK
To start off, 2002 Mitsubishi eK is newer by 37 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 1,098 cc (4 cylinders), 1965 Austin A 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Mitsubishi eK weights approximately 30 kg more than 1965 Austin A 40.
Because 1965 Austin A 40 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 1965 Austin A 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Mitsubishi eK, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1965 Austin A 40 | 2002 Mitsubishi eK | |
Make | Austin | Mitsubishi |
Model | A 40 | eK |
Year Released | 1965 | 2002 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1098 cc | 657 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 47 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 760 kg | 790 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 3400 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1480 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1560 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 2350 mm |