1979 Mazda 626 vs. 2011 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2011 Ford Ecosport is newer by 32 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 1,600 cc (4 cylinders), 2011 Ford Ecosport is equipped with a bigger engine.
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, 2011 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:
1979 Mazda 626 | 2011 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | 626 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1979 | 2011 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1586 cc | 1600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 109 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4310 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1670 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2490 mm |