1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2009 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 23 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), 2009 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 2009 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2009 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, 2009 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 | 2009 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Caterham | Mazda |
| Model | 1700 | 3 |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2009 |
| 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 | 6000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 11.0:1 |
| Top Speed | 188 km/hour | 208 km/hour |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4500 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 |
