1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2010 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2010 Ford Ecosport is newer by 24 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 1,692 cc (4 cylinders), 1986 Caterham 1700 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP) has 101 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ecosport. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ecosport.
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, 2010 Ford Ecosport, 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 | 2010 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Caterham | Ford |
| Model | 1700 | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 1400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 67 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2490 mm |
