2003 Acura EL vs. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford
To start off, 2003 Acura EL is newer by 51 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford would be higher. At 2,441 cc (4 cylinders), 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Acura EL (124 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 19 more horse power than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. (105 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Acura EL should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford weights approximately 350 kg more than 2003 Acura EL.
Let's talk about torque, 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford (184 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 29 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Acura EL. (155 Nm @ 4800 RPM). This means 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Acura EL.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Acura EL | 1952 Austin-Healey Tickford | |
| Make | Acura | Austin-Healey |
| Model | EL | Tickford |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1952 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1668 cc | 2441 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 124 HP | 105 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Torque | 155 Nm | 184 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4800 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 1180 kg | 1530 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4490 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1710 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2600 mm |
