2004 Chevrolet Astro vs. 2005 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chevrolet Astro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet Astro would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Astro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Chevrolet Astro (190 HP) has 120 more horse power than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Astro should accelerate faster than 2005 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Astro weights approximately 1211 kg more than 2005 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 Chevrolet Astro (339 Nm) has 237 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm). This means 2004 Chevrolet Astro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Chevrolet Astro | 2005 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Chevrolet | MCC |
| Model | Astro | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2005 |
| Engine Size | 4294 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1955 kg | 744 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1910 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 1810 mm |
