1983 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2002 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2002 Jaguar XJ is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 3,248 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jaguar XJ (240 HP @ 6350 RPM) has 151 more horse power than 1983 Chevrolet Camaro. (89 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 1983 Chevrolet Camaro.
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, 2002 Jaguar XJ (316 Nm @ 4350 RPM) has 137 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Chevrolet Camaro. (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 2002 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Chevrolet Camaro.
Compare all specifications:
1983 Chevrolet Camaro | 2002 Jaguar XJ | |
Make | Chevrolet | Jaguar |
Model | Camaro | XJ |
Year Released | 1983 | 2002 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2473 cc | 3248 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 240 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6350 RPM |
Torque | 179 Nm | 316 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 4350 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 5160 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1800 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2880 mm |