1978 Chrysler 160 vs. 2010 Mazda 3
To start off, 2010 Mazda 3 is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1978 Chrysler 160. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1978 Chrysler 160 would be higher. At 2,184 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda 3 (148 HP @ 3500 RPM) has 59 more horse power than 1978 Chrysler 160. (89 HP @ 5800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1978 Chrysler 160.
Because 1978 Chrysler 160 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 1978 Chrysler 160. 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, 2010 Mazda 3 (360 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 227 more torque (in Nm) than 1978 Chrysler 160. (133 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1978 Chrysler 160.
Compare all specifications:
| 1978 Chrysler 160 | 2010 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Chrysler | Mazda |
| Model | 160 | 3 |
| Year Released | 1978 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1639 cc | 2184 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 89 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Torque | 133 Nm | 360 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 1800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 4590 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1755 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1471 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2639 mm |
