1983 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2006 Opel Meriva
To start off, 2006 Opel Meriva is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. At 1,769 cc (4 cylinders), 1983 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine.
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, 2006 Opel Meriva, 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 | 2006 Opel Meriva | |
| Make | Mazda | Opel |
| Model | Cosmo | Meriva |
| Year Released | 1983 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1769 cc | 1364 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 93 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1700 mm |
