1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass vs. 2010 Mazda 6
To start off, 2010 Mazda 6 is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 3,700 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda 6 (272 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 112 more horse power than 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass. (160 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
Because 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass 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 Oldsmobile Cutlass. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 6, 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, 2010 Mazda 6 (364 Nm) has 113 more torque (in Nm) than 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass. (251 Nm). This means 2010 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
Compare all specifications:
1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass | 2010 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Oldsmobile | Mazda |
Model | Cutlass | 6 |
Year Released | 1976 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3344 cc | 3700 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 272 HP |
Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 251 Nm | 364 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4920 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1839 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2789 mm |