1966 Austin A 40 vs. 2000 Oldsmobile SS
To start off, 2000 Oldsmobile SS is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Oldsmobile SS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Oldsmobile SS (202 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 155 more horse power than 1966 Austin A 40. (47 HP @ 5100 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Oldsmobile SS should accelerate faster than 1966 Austin A 40.
Because 1966 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 1966 Austin A 40. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Oldsmobile SS, 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 Oldsmobile SS (318 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 237 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Austin A 40. (81 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2000 Oldsmobile SS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Austin A 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Austin A 40 | 2000 Oldsmobile SS | |
| Make | Austin | Oldsmobile |
| Model | A 40 | SS |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1098 cc | 3791 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 47 HP | 202 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5100 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 81 Nm | 318 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 5130 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 1900 mm |
