1996 Caterham 7 vs. 1978 Mazda RX-2
To start off, 1996 Caterham 7 is newer by 18 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1978 Mazda RX-2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1978 Mazda RX-2 would be higher. At 2,290 cc, 1978 Mazda RX-2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Caterham 7 (138 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 20 more horse power than 1978 Mazda RX-2. (118 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 1978 Mazda RX-2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1978 Mazda RX-2 weights approximately 482 kg more than 1996 Caterham 7.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1978 Mazda RX-2 (157 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 1 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Caterham 7. (156 Nm @ 5000 RPM). This means 1978 Mazda RX-2 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Caterham 7.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Caterham 7 | 1978 Mazda RX-2 | |
| Make | Caterham | Mazda |
| Model | 7 | RX-2 |
| Year Released | 1996 | 1978 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1588 cc | 2290 cc |
| Engine Type | in-line | dual-disk rotary |
| Horse Power | 138 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 156 Nm | 157 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5000 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 478 kg | 960 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4160 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1590 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 810 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2240 mm | 2480 mm |
