1968 Jaguar 240 vs. 2001 Mazda CU-X
To start off, 2001 Mazda CU-X is newer by 33 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Jaguar 240. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Jaguar 240 would be higher. At 2,483 cc (6 cylinders), 1968 Jaguar 240 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1968 Jaguar 240 (131 HP @ 5550 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1968 Jaguar 240 should accelerate faster than 2001 Mazda CU-X. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Jaguar 240 weights approximately 95 kg more than 2001 Mazda CU-X. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1968 Jaguar 240 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 1968 Jaguar 240. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X, 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, 2001 Mazda CU-X (240 Nm) has 36 more torque (in Nm) than 1968 Jaguar 240. (204 Nm). This means 2001 Mazda CU-X will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1968 Jaguar 240.
Compare all specifications:
| 1968 Jaguar 240 | 2001 Mazda CU-X | |
| Make | Jaguar | Mazda |
| Model | 240 | CU-X |
| Year Released | 1968 | 2001 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2483 cc | 1970 cc |
| Horse Power | 131 HP | 99 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5550 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 204 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1440 kg | 1345 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2740 mm | 2680 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 80 L |
