2002 MCC Crossblade vs. 1965 Simca 1300
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Simca 1300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Simca 1300 would be higher. At 1,290 cc (4 cylinders), 1965 Simca 1300 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 19 more horse power than 1965 Simca 1300. (51 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1965 Simca 1300. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Simca 1300 weights approximately 256 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, both vehicles can yield 102 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 MCC Crossblade | 1965 Simca 1300 | |
| Make | MCC | Simca |
| Model | Crossblade | 1300 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1965 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1290 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 51 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 2600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 996 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4250 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1580 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2530 mm |
