1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass vs. 2004 Chrysler Crossfire
To start off, 2004 Chrysler Crossfire is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 4,343 cc (8 cylinders), 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Chrysler Crossfire (215 HP @ 5700 RPM) has 95 more horse power than 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. (120 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chrysler Crossfire should accelerate faster than 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass weights approximately 34 kg more than 2004 Chrysler Crossfire.
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. Let's talk about torque, 2004 Chrysler Crossfire (340 Nm) has 35 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. (305 Nm). This means 2004 Chrysler Crossfire will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
Compare all specifications:
| 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass | 2004 Chrysler Crossfire | |
| Make | Oldsmobile | Chrysler |
| Model | Cutlass | Crossfire |
| Year Released | 1980 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4343 cc | 3196 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 120 HP | 215 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Torque | 305 Nm | 340 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1486 kg | 1452 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2410 mm |
