1982 Nissan Pulsar vs. 2010 Ford C-Max
To start off, 2010 Ford C-Max is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Nissan Pulsar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Nissan Pulsar would be higher. At 1,596 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Ford C-Max is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford C-Max (150 HP) has 80 more horse power than 1982 Nissan Pulsar. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford C-Max should accelerate faster than 1982 Nissan Pulsar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Ford C-Max weights approximately 510 kg more than 1982 Nissan Pulsar. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2010 Ford C-Max (240 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 125 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Nissan Pulsar. (115 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2010 Ford C-Max will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Nissan Pulsar.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Nissan Pulsar | 2010 Ford C-Max | |
Make | Nissan | Ford |
Model | Pulsar | C-Max |
Year Released | 1982 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1488 cc | 1596 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 70 HP | 150 HP |
Torque | 115 Nm | 240 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 1600 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 865 kg | 1375 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3970 mm | 4380 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1828 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1626 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2420 mm | 2648 mm |