1996 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma
To start off, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma would be higher. At 6,276 cc (8 cylinders), 1996 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro (435 HP) has 337 more horse power than 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma. (98 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma weights approximately 8 kg more than 1996 Chevrolet Camaro.
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, 1996 Chevrolet Camaro (576 Nm) has 388 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma. (188 Nm). This means 1996 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Chevrolet Camaro | 1980 Mitsubishi Sigma | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mitsubishi |
Model | Camaro | Sigma |
Year Released | 1996 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6276 cc | 2554 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 435 HP | 98 HP |
Torque | 576 Nm | 188 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1187 kg | 1195 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4460 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2520 mm |