1980 Austin Mini Metro vs. 1967 Riley Kestrel
To start off, 1980 Austin Mini Metro is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Riley Kestrel. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Riley Kestrel would be higher. At 1,257 cc (4 cylinders), 1980 Austin Mini Metro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Austin Mini Metro (62 HP @ 5650 RPM) has 9 more horse power than 1967 Riley Kestrel. (53 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1980 Austin Mini Metro should accelerate faster than 1967 Riley Kestrel. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1967 Riley Kestrel weights approximately 134 kg more than 1980 Austin Mini Metro.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 1980 Austin Mini Metro (97 Nm @ 3100 RPM) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Riley Kestrel. (83 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 1980 Austin Mini Metro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Riley Kestrel.
Compare all specifications:
| 1980 Austin Mini Metro | 1967 Riley Kestrel | |
| Make | Austin | Riley |
| Model | Mini Metro | Kestrel |
| Year Released | 1980 | 1967 |
| Engine Size | 1257 cc | 1098 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 62 HP | 53 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5650 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 97 Nm | 83 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3100 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.4:1 | 8.3:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 754 kg | 888 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3410 mm | 3730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1550 mm | 1540 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1350 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2380 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 31 L | 25 L |
