1981 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2009 Nissan Pixo
To start off, 2009 Nissan Pixo is newer by 28 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 1,970 cc (4 cylinders), 1981 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1981 Mazda Cosmo (102 HP) has 34 more horse power than 2009 Nissan Pixo. (68 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1981 Mazda Cosmo should accelerate faster than 2009 Nissan Pixo.
Because 1981 Mazda Cosmo 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 1981 Mazda Cosmo. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Pixo, 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:
| 1981 Mazda Cosmo | 2009 Nissan Pixo | |
| Make | Mazda | Nissan |
| Model | Cosmo | Pixo |
| Year Released | 1981 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1970 cc | 996 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 102 HP | 68 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 3580 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1680 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2360 mm |
