1980 Austin Allegro vs. 2012 Citroen C-Crosser
To start off, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Austin Allegro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Austin Allegro would be higher. At 2,359 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Citroen C-Crosser is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser (168 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 124 more horse power than 1980 Austin Allegro. (44 HP @ 5250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser should accelerate faster than 1980 Austin Allegro.
Because 2012 Citroen C-Crosser is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1980 Austin Allegro. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 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, 2012 Citroen C-Crosser (232 Nm @ 4100 RPM) has 158 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Austin Allegro. (74 Nm @ 2900 RPM). This means 2012 Citroen C-Crosser will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Austin Allegro.
Compare all specifications:
| 1980 Austin Allegro | 2012 Citroen C-Crosser | |
| Make | Austin | Citroen |
| Model | Allegro | C-Crosser |
| Year Released | 1980 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1098 cc | 2359 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 44 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 74 Nm | 232 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2900 RPM | 4100 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 64.6 mm | 88 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 83.7 mm | 87 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
