1980 Austin Mini Metro vs. 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 1980 Austin Mini Metro is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 5,736 cc (8 cylinders), 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass weights approximately 856 kg more than 1980 Austin Mini Metro.
Because 1969 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 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1980 Austin Mini Metro, 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. 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 1980 Austin Mini Metro has manual transmission. 1980 Austin Mini Metro will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1980 Austin Mini Metro | 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
| Make | Austin | Oldsmobile |
| Model | Mini Metro | Cutlass |
| Year Released | 1980 | 1969 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1257 cc | 5736 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 62 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 754 kg | 1610 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3410 mm | 5280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1550 mm | 1960 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2960 mm |
