1976 Mazda RX-2 vs. 2003 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2003 Ford Ecosport is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Mazda RX-2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Mazda RX-2 would be higher. At 2,292 cc, 1976 Mazda RX-2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Ecosport (143 HP) has 25 more horse power than 1976 Mazda RX-2. (118 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport should accelerate faster than 1976 Mazda RX-2.
Because 1976 Mazda RX-2 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 Mazda RX-2. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ecosport, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1976 Mazda RX-2 | 2003 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Mazda | Ford |
| Model | RX-2 | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1976 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2292 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
| Horse Power | 118 HP | 143 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4160 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2480 mm | 2490 mm |
