2002 MCC Crossblade vs. 1962 Simca 1000
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 40 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Simca 1000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Simca 1000 would be higher. At 944 cc (4 cylinders), 1962 Simca 1000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 31 more horse power than 1962 Simca 1000. (39 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1962 Simca 1000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Simca 1000 weights approximately 82 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
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 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 38 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Simca 1000. (64 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2002 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Simca 1000.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 MCC Crossblade | 1962 Simca 1000 | |
| Make | MCC | Simca |
| Model | Crossblade | 1000 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1962 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 944 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 39 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 64 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 3400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 822 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3800 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1530 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1260 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2230 mm |
