1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass vs. 1967 Triumph 1300
To start off, 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Triumph 1300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Triumph 1300 would be higher. At 3,790 cc (6 cylinders), 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass weights approximately 562 kg more than 1967 Triumph 1300.
Because 1980 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 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1967 Triumph 1300, 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:
| 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass | 1967 Triumph 1300 | |
| Make | Oldsmobile | Triumph |
| Model | Cutlass | 1300 |
| Year Released | 1980 | 1967 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3790 cc | 1296 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 60 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1480 kg | 918 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 3940 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1570 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2460 mm |
