1974 Mazda RX-2 vs. 2010 Land Rover LR3
To start off, 2010 Land Rover LR3 is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1974 Mazda RX-2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1974 Mazda RX-2 would be higher. At 4,394 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Land Rover LR3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Land Rover LR3 (296 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 177 more horse power than 1974 Mazda RX-2. (119 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover LR3 should accelerate faster than 1974 Mazda RX-2.
Because 2010 Land Rover LR3 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1974 Mazda RX-2. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover LR3 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, 2010 Land Rover LR3 (316 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 159 more torque (in Nm) than 1974 Mazda RX-2. (157 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2010 Land Rover LR3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1974 Mazda RX-2.
Compare all specifications:
| 1974 Mazda RX-2 | 2010 Land Rover LR3 | |
| Make | Mazda | Land Rover |
| Model | RX-2 | LR3 |
| Year Released | 1974 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2292 cc | 4394 cc |
| Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | V |
| Horse Power | 119 HP | 296 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 157 Nm | 316 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
