1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2002 BMW Z3
To start off, 2002 BMW Z3 is newer by 16 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 2,926 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 BMW Z3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 BMW Z3 (227 HP @ 5900 RPM) has 59 more horse power than 1986 Caterham 1700. (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 BMW Z3 should accelerate faster than 1986 Caterham 1700.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1986 Caterham 1700 | 2002 BMW Z3 | |
| Make | Caterham | BMW |
| Model | 1700 | Z3 |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2002 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 2926 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 227 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5900 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 10.2:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4060 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1750 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1300 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2450 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 51 L |
