1980 Chrysler 1609 vs. 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 1980 Chrysler 1609 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 7,446 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 680 kg more than 1980 Chrysler 1609.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 Chrysler 1609 has manual transmission. 1980 Chrysler 1609 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 Chrysler 1609 | 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
| Make | Chrysler | Oldsmobile |
| Model | 1609 | Cutlass |
| Year Released | 1980 | 1969 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1812 cc | 7446 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 101 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1100 kg | 1780 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4530 mm | 5280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1960 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2960 mm |
