1981 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2009 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2009 Smart ForTwo 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 2,292 cc (2 cylinders), 1981 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1981 Mazda Cosmo (120 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 2009 Smart ForTwo. (70 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1981 Mazda Cosmo should accelerate faster than 2009 Smart ForTwo.
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 (162 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 70 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Smart ForTwo. (92 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1981 Mazda Cosmo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Smart ForTwo.
Compare all specifications:
1981 Mazda Cosmo | 2009 Smart ForTwo | |
Make | Mazda | Smart |
Model | Cosmo | ForTwo |
Year Released | 1981 | 2009 |
Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 2292 cc | 999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 120 HP | 70 HP |
Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 162 Nm | 92 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 2700 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1550 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1570 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 1870 mm |