1965 DAF Daffodil vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 DAF Daffodil. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 DAF Daffodil would be higher. At 1,558 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda 3 (108 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 82 more horse power than 1965 DAF Daffodil. (26 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1965 DAF Daffodil. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda 3 weights approximately 600 kg more than 1965 DAF Daffodil. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1965 DAF Daffodil is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1965 DAF Daffodil. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1965 DAF Daffodil | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | DAF | Mazda |
| Model | Daffodil | 3 |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 746 cc | 1558 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 26 HP | 108 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 660 kg | 1260 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3620 mm | 4430 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1450 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2060 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 33 L | 55 L |
