1967 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2006 Renault Clio
To start off, 2006 Renault Clio is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. At 1,964 cc, 1967 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Renault Clio (97 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 1967 Mazda Cosmo. (93 HP @ 7000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Renault Clio should accelerate faster than 1967 Mazda Cosmo. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Renault Clio weights approximately 90 kg more than 1967 Mazda Cosmo. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 1967 Mazda Cosmo (133 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 6 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Renault Clio. (127 Nm @ 3750 RPM). This means 1967 Mazda Cosmo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Renault Clio.
Compare all specifications:
1967 Mazda Cosmo | 2006 Renault Clio | |
Make | Mazda | Renault |
Model | Cosmo | Clio |
Year Released | 1967 | 2006 |
Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1964 cc | 1390 cc |
Horse Power | 93 HP | 97 HP |
Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 133 Nm | 127 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 3750 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 940 kg | 1030 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4150 mm | 3780 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1600 mm | 1650 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1170 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2690 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 57 L | 50 L |