1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 1995 Mazda 626
To start off, 1995 Mazda 626 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Caterham 1700 would be higher. At 2,497 cc (6 cylinders), 1995 Mazda 626 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1995 Mazda 626. (161 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 1995 Mazda 626.
Because 1986 Caterham 1700 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 1986 Caterham 1700. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1995 Mazda 626, 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:
| 1986 Caterham 1700 | 1995 Mazda 626 | |
| Make | Caterham | Mazda |
| Model | 1700 | 626 |
| Year Released | 1986 | 1995 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 2497 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 161 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4700 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2620 mm |
