2004 AC Aceca vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2004 AC Aceca is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 3,504 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 AC Aceca is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 AC Aceca (346 HP) has 276 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 AC Aceca should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 AC Aceca weights approximately 870 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. 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, 2004 AC Aceca (400 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 298 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 2004 AC Aceca will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
2004 AC Aceca | 2002 MCC Crossblade | |
Make | AC | MCC |
Model | Aceca | Crossblade |
Year Released | 2004 | 2002 |
Engine Size | 3504 cc | 599 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 346 HP | 70 HP |
Torque | 400 Nm | 102 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3210 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1610 kg | 740 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 2630 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 1810 mm |