1982 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2004 Mazda 6
To start off, 2004 Mazda 6 is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 2,835 cc (6 cylinders), 1982 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Chevrolet Camaro (101 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 2 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 6. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1982 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 6.
Because 1982 Chevrolet Camaro 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 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Mazda 6, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2004 Mazda 6 (231 Nm) has 39 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro. (192 Nm). This means 2004 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Chevrolet Camaro.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Chevrolet Camaro | 2004 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Camaro | 6 |
Year Released | 1982 | 2004 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2835 cc | 1596 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 101 HP | 99 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 192 Nm | 231 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2630 mm |