1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2009 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Mazda 6 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 2,489 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 6 (170 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 2 more horse power than 1986 Caterham 1700. (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 1986 Caterham 1700.
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 6, 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 6 | |
Make | Caterham | Mazda |
Model | 1700 | 6 |
Year Released | 1986 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1692 cc | 2489 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 170 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 10.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4930 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2800 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 70 L |