2005 MCC Crossblade vs. 1962 Triumph Vitesse
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Triumph Vitesse. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Triumph Vitesse would be higher. At 1,596 cc (6 cylinders), 1962 Triumph Vitesse is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 70 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Triumph Vitesse weights approximately 136 kg more than 2005 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, 1962 Triumph Vitesse (126 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1962 Triumph Vitesse will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 MCC Crossblade | 1962 Triumph Vitesse | |
| Make | MCC | Triumph |
| Model | Crossblade | Vitesse |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1962 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1596 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 126 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 2800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 744 kg | 880 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3890 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1530 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2270 mm |
