1996 Jaguar XJS vs. 2009 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Jaguar XJS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Jaguar XJS would be higher. At 3,978 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Jaguar XJS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 3 (263 HP) has 41 more horse power than 1996 Jaguar XJS. (222 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1996 Jaguar XJS.
Because 1996 Jaguar XJS 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 1996 Jaguar XJS. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Jaguar XJS | 2009 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Jaguar | Mazda |
Model | XJS | 3 |
Year Released | 1996 | 2009 |
Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3978 cc | 2260 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 222 HP | 263 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1770 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1270 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2600 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 55 L |