1986 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2002 Kia Optima
To start off, 2002 Kia Optima is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 2,497 cc (4 cylinders), 2002 Kia Optima is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Kia Optima (138 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 1986 Chevrolet Camaro. (89 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Kia Optima should accelerate faster than 1986 Chevrolet Camaro.
Because 1986 Chevrolet Camaro 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 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Kia Optima, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2002 Kia Optima (216 Nm) has 37 more torque (in Nm) than 1986 Chevrolet Camaro. (179 Nm). This means 2002 Kia Optima will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1986 Chevrolet Camaro.
Compare all specifications:
1986 Chevrolet Camaro | 2002 Kia Optima | |
Make | Chevrolet | Kia |
Model | Camaro | Optima |
Year Released | 1986 | 2002 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2474 cc | 2497 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 138 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 179 Nm | 216 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 4740 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1830 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2710 mm |