1973 Mazda RX-2 vs. 2003 Honda CR-V

To start off, 2003 Honda CR-V is newer by 30 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1973 Mazda RX-2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1973 Mazda RX-2 would be higher. At 2,359 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Honda CR-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Honda CR-V (160 HP @ 5700 RPM) has 42 more horse power than 1973 Mazda RX-2. (118 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Honda CR-V should accelerate faster than 1973 Mazda RX-2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Honda CR-V weights approximately 518 kg more than 1973 Mazda RX-2. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 2003 Honda CR-V is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1973 Mazda RX-2. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Honda CR-V will offer significantly more control. 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, 2003 Honda CR-V (218 Nm) has 61 more torque (in Nm) than 1973 Mazda RX-2. (157 Nm). This means 2003 Honda CR-V will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1973 Mazda RX-2.

Compare all specifications: