2002 MCC Crossblade vs. 1963 NSU 1000 C
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 NSU 1000 C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 NSU 1000 C would be higher. At 996 cc (4 cylinders), 1963 NSU 1000 C is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 31 more horse power than 1963 NSU 1000 C. (39 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1963 NSU 1000 C. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 MCC Crossblade weights approximately 100 kg more than 1963 NSU 1000 C. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 33 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 NSU 1000 C. (69 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2002 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 NSU 1000 C.
Compare all specifications:
2002 MCC Crossblade | 1963 NSU 1000 C | |
Make | MCC | NSU |
Model | Crossblade | 1000 C |
Year Released | 2002 | 1963 |
Engine Size | 599 cc | 996 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 70 HP | 39 HP |
Torque | 102 Nm | 69 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 640 kg |
Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1490 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2260 mm |