2000 AC Aceca vs. 2009 Acura CSX
To start off, 2009 Acura CSX is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 AC Aceca would be higher. At 3,504 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 AC Aceca is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 AC Aceca (346 HP) has 149 more horse power than 2009 Acura CSX. (197 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 AC Aceca should accelerate faster than 2009 Acura CSX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 AC Aceca weights approximately 297 kg more than 2009 Acura CSX. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2000 AC Aceca 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 2000 AC Aceca. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Acura CSX, 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:
2000 AC Aceca | 2009 Acura CSX | |
Make | AC | Acura |
Model | Aceca | CSX |
Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3504 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 346 HP | 197 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1610 kg | 1313 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 4544 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1752 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1435 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 2700 mm |