1986 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2003 Honda HR-V
To start off, 2003 Honda HR-V is newer by 17 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 2,474 cc (6 cylinders), 1986 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Honda HR-V (113 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 24 more horse power than 1986 Chevrolet Camaro. (89 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Honda HR-V 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, 2003 Honda HR-V, 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, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 48 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Honda HR-V. (131 Nm @ 3400 RPM). This means 1986 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Honda HR-V.
Compare all specifications:
1986 Chevrolet Camaro | 2003 Honda HR-V | |
Make | Chevrolet | Honda |
Model | Camaro | HR-V |
Year Released | 1986 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2474 cc | 1672 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 113 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6200 RPM |
Torque | 179 Nm | 131 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 4020 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1700 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2360 mm |