1976 Ford Falcon vs. 2010 Mazda 3
To start off, 2010 Mazda 3 is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Ford Falcon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Ford Falcon would be higher. At 5,763 cc (8 cylinders), 1976 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1976 Ford Falcon (256 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 143 more horse power than 2010 Mazda 3. (113 HP @ 3600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1976 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 2010 Mazda 3.
Because 1976 Ford Falcon 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 1976 Ford Falcon. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 3, 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, 1976 Ford Falcon (491 Nm @ 2600 RPM) has 221 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Mazda 3. (270 Nm @ 1750 RPM). This means 1976 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
1976 Ford Falcon | 2010 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Falcon | 3 |
Year Released | 1976 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5763 cc | 1560 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 256 HP | 113 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Torque | 491 Nm | 270 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2600 RPM | 1750 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 5-speed manual |
Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2639 mm |