1966 BMW 1600 vs. 2010 Citroen C-Crosser
To start off, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 BMW 1600. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 BMW 1600 would be higher. At 2,359 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Citroen C-Crosser is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser (168 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 83 more horse power than 1966 BMW 1600. (85 HP @ 5800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser should accelerate faster than 1966 BMW 1600.
Because 2010 Citroen C-Crosser is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 BMW 1600. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser will offer significantly more control. 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, 2010 Citroen C-Crosser (232 Nm @ 4100 RPM) has 108 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 BMW 1600. (124 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2010 Citroen C-Crosser will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 BMW 1600.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 BMW 1600 | 2010 Citroen C-Crosser | |
| Make | BMW | Citroen |
| Model | 1600 | C-Crosser |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1574 cc | 2359 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 85 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 124 Nm | 232 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4100 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 88 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 71 mm | 87 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
