1968 Volvo 145 vs. 1976 Mazda Cosmo
To start off, 1976 Mazda Cosmo is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Volvo 145. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Volvo 145 would be higher. At 1,986 cc (4 cylinders), 1968 Volvo 145 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1976 Mazda Cosmo (93 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 1968 Volvo 145. (81 HP @ 4700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1976 Mazda Cosmo should accelerate faster than 1968 Volvo 145. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Volvo 145 weights approximately 220 kg more than 1976 Mazda Cosmo.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1968 Volvo 145 (157 Nm @ 2300 RPM) has 7 more torque (in Nm) than 1976 Mazda Cosmo. (150 Nm @ 3300 RPM). This means 1968 Volvo 145 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1976 Mazda Cosmo.
Compare all specifications:
1968 Volvo 145 | 1976 Mazda Cosmo | |
Make | Volvo | Mazda |
Model | 145 | Cosmo |
Year Released | 1968 | 1976 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1986 cc | 1769 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 81 HP | 93 HP |
Engine RPM | 4700 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 157 Nm | 150 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2300 RPM | 3300 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 88.9 mm | 80.1 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 80 mm | 88 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1310 kg | 1090 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 4480 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2520 mm |