1970 Chrysler 160 vs. 2001 Mazda CU-X
To start off, 2001 Mazda CU-X is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1970 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1970 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 1,970 cc, 2001 Mazda CU-X is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2001 Mazda CU-X (99 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 20 more horse power than 1970 Chrysler 160. (79 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X should accelerate faster than 1970 Chrysler 160. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Mazda CU-X weights approximately 280 kg more than 1970 Chrysler 160. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1970 Chrysler 160 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 1970 Chrysler 160. 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 115 more torque (in Nm) than 1970 Chrysler 160. (125 Nm). This means 2001 Mazda CU-X will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1970 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
1970 Chrysler 160 | 2001 Mazda CU-X | |
Make | Chrysler | Mazda |
Model | 160 | CU-X |
Year Released | 1970 | 2001 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1639 cc | 1970 cc |
Horse Power | 79 HP | 99 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 125 Nm | 240 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1065 kg | 1345 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2680 mm |