1981 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2005 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2005 Smart ForTwo is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1981 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1981 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. At 2,210 cc (4 cylinders), 1981 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Smart ForTwo (74 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 1981 Mazda Cosmo. (66 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Smart ForTwo should accelerate faster than 1981 Mazda Cosmo.
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, 1981 Mazda Cosmo (142 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 32 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Smart ForTwo. (110 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 1981 Mazda Cosmo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Smart ForTwo.
Compare all specifications:
| 1981 Mazda Cosmo | 2005 Smart ForTwo | |
| Make | Mazda | Smart |
| Model | Cosmo | ForTwo |
| Year Released | 1981 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 2210 cc | 698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 66 HP | 74 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 142 Nm | 110 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 2200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 2510 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1520 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 1820 mm |
