1984 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2000 Renault Clio
To start off, 2000 Renault Clio is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1984 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1984 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1984 Mazda Cosmo weights approximately 300 kg more than 2000 Renault Clio.
Because 1984 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 1984 Mazda Cosmo. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Renault Clio, 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:
| 1984 Mazda Cosmo | 2000 Renault Clio | |
| Make | Mazda | Renault |
| Model | Cosmo | Clio |
| Year Released | 1984 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1235 kg | 935 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 3780 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1650 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2770 mm |
