1982 Mitsubishi Sigma vs. 2010 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2010 Ford Ecosport is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma would be higher. At 1,597 cc (4 cylinders), 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma (89 HP) has 22 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ecosport. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ecosport.
Because 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma 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 Mitsubishi Sigma. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Ford Ecosport, 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:
1982 Mitsubishi Sigma | 2010 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Mitsubishi | Ford |
Model | Sigma | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1982 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1597 cc | 1400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 67 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 4460 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2490 mm |