1996 Ford Royale vs. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 1996 Ford Royale is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 3,789 cc (6 cylinders), 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass 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 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Ford Royale, 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. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 1996 Ford Royale has manual transmission. 1996 Ford Royale will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Ford Royale | 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
Make | Ford | Oldsmobile |
Model | Royale | Cutlass |
Year Released | 1996 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1984 cc | 3789 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 109 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4610 mm | 5530 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1390 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2760 mm |