2005 MCC Crossblade vs. 1966 NSU 1000
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 NSU 1000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 NSU 1000 would be higher. At 1,084 cc (4 cylinders), 1966 NSU 1000 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 17 more horse power than 1966 NSU 1000. (53 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2005 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1966 NSU 1000. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 MCC Crossblade weights approximately 64 kg more than 1966 NSU 1000. 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, 2005 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 NSU 1000. (80 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2005 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 NSU 1000.
Compare all specifications:
2005 MCC Crossblade | 1966 NSU 1000 | |
Make | MCC | NSU |
Model | Crossblade | 1000 |
Year Released | 2005 | 1966 |
Engine Size | 599 cc | 1084 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 70 HP | 53 HP |
Torque | 102 Nm | 80 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 744 kg | 680 kg |
Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3800 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1500 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2260 mm |