1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2013 Kia Forte
To start off, 2013 Kia Forte is newer by 27 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 2,400 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Kia Forte is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Kia Forte (171 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 1986 Caterham 1700. (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Kia Forte 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, 2013 Kia Forte, 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 | 2013 Kia Forte | |
Make | Caterham | Kia |
Model | 1700 | Forte |
Year Released | 1986 | 2013 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1692 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 171 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4340 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1775 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 52 L |