1980 Zastava 132 vs. 2006 Acura CSX
To start off, 2006 Acura CSX is newer by 26 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Zastava 132. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Zastava 132 would be higher. At 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Acura CSX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Acura CSX (197 HP) has 91 more horse power than 1980 Zastava 132. (106 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Acura CSX should accelerate faster than 1980 Zastava 132. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Acura CSX weights approximately 218 kg more than 1980 Zastava 132. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1980 Zastava 132 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 Zastava 132. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Acura CSX, 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 Zastava 132 | 2006 Acura CSX | |
| Make | Zastava | Acura |
| Model | 132 | CSX |
| Year Released | 1980 | 2006 |
| Engine Size | 1756 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 106 HP | 197 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1095 kg | 1313 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4410 mm | 4544 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1650 mm | 1752 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1435 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2700 mm |
