1967 Zastava 1500 vs. 2013 Mazda CX-09

To start off, 2013 Mazda CX-09 is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Zastava 1500. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Zastava 1500 would be higher. At 3,726 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Mazda CX-09 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Mazda CX-09 (269 HP) has 216 more horse power than 1967 Zastava 1500. (53 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Mazda CX-09 should accelerate faster than 1967 Zastava 1500. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Mazda CX-09 weights approximately 1082 kg more than 1967 Zastava 1500. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1967 Zastava 1500 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 1967 Zastava 1500. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Mazda CX-09, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2013 Mazda CX-09 (366 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 273 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Zastava 1500. (93 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2013 Mazda CX-09 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Zastava 1500. 2013 Mazda CX-09 has automatic transmission and 1967 Zastava 1500 has manual transmission. 1967 Zastava 1500 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2013 Mazda CX-09 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: