1979 Mazda 626 vs. 2010 Chevrolet Epica
To start off, 2010 Chevrolet Epica is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1979 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1979 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 1,991 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Chevrolet Epica is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Chevrolet Epica weights approximately 590 kg more than 1979 Mazda 626.
Because 1979 Mazda 626 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 1979 Mazda 626. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Chevrolet Epica, 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:
1979 Mazda 626 | 2010 Chevrolet Epica | |
Make | Mazda | Chevrolet |
Model | 626 | Epica |
Year Released | 1979 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1586 cc | 1991 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 148 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1045 kg | 1635 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4310 mm | 4810 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1670 mm | 1820 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2710 mm |