1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2005 Mazda 3
To start off, 2005 Mazda 3 is newer by 19 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 1,999 cc (4 cylinders), 2005 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 20 more horse power than 2005 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2005 Mazda 3.
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, 2005 Mazda 3, 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 | 2005 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Caterham | Mazda |
Model | 1700 | 3 |
Year Released | 1986 | 2005 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1692 cc | 1999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 10.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4540 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 55 L |