1966 DAF Daffodil vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 DAF Daffodil. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 DAF Daffodil would be higher. At 2,184 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Mazda 3 (148 HP @ 3500 RPM) has 122 more horse power than 1966 DAF Daffodil. (26 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1966 DAF Daffodil.
Because 1966 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 1966 DAF Daffodil. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 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:
| 1966 DAF Daffodil | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | DAF | Mazda |
| Model | Daffodil | 3 |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 746 cc | 2184 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 26 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Length | 3620 mm | 4590 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1450 mm | 1755 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1471 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2060 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 33 L | 55 L |
