1972 Chrysler 160 vs. 1981 Mazda Cosmo
To start off, 1981 Mazda Cosmo is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1972 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1972 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 2,210 cc (4 cylinders), 1981 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1972 Chrysler 160 (79 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 1981 Mazda Cosmo. (66 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1972 Chrysler 160 should accelerate faster than 1981 Mazda Cosmo. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1981 Mazda Cosmo weights approximately 127 kg more than 1972 Chrysler 160.
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, 1981 Mazda Cosmo (142 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 17 more torque (in Nm) than 1972 Chrysler 160. (125 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1981 Mazda Cosmo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1972 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
| 1972 Chrysler 160 | 1981 Mazda Cosmo | |
| Make | Chrysler | Mazda |
| Model | 160 | Cosmo |
| Year Released | 1972 | 1981 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1639 cc | 2210 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 79 HP | 66 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 125 Nm | 142 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1068 kg | 1195 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4670 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2620 mm |
