2002 AC Aceca vs. 1952 Buick 40
To start off, 2002 AC Aceca is newer by 50 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Buick 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Buick 40 would be higher. At 4,066 cc (8 cylinders), 1952 Buick 40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 AC Aceca (350 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 232 more horse power than 1952 Buick 40. (118 HP @ 3600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2002 AC Aceca should accelerate faster than 1952 Buick 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Buick 40 weights approximately 25 kg more than 2002 AC Aceca.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2002 AC Aceca (400 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 108 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Buick 40. (292 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2002 AC Aceca will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Buick 40.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 AC Aceca | 1952 Buick 40 | |
| Make | AC | Buick |
| Model | Aceca | 40 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1952 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3506 cc | 4066 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 350 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Torque | 400 Nm | 292 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 83 mm | 78.6 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 81 mm | 104.8 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1610 kg | 1635 kg |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1950 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 3090 mm |
