1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 25 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 1,800 cc (4 cylinders), 2011 Toyota Matrix is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 36 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
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, 2011 Toyota Matrix, 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 | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Caterham | Toyota |
| Model | 1700 | Matrix |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2011 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 1800 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 132 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4366 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 50 L |
