1983 Mazda Cosmo vs. 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 1983 Mazda Cosmo is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 2,260 cc (4 cylinders), 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass weights approximately 236 kg more than 1983 Mazda Cosmo.
Because 1983 Mazda Cosmo 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 1983 Mazda Cosmo. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 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:
1983 Mazda Cosmo | 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
Make | Mazda | Oldsmobile |
Model | Cosmo | Cutlass |
Year Released | 1983 | 1982 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1769 cc | 2260 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 93 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1090 kg | 1326 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 4850 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1780 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2680 mm |