1996 Mazda RX-7 vs. 2010 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2010 Ford Ecosport is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mazda RX-7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mazda RX-7 would be higher. At 2,616 cc, 1996 Mazda RX-7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Mazda RX-7 (238 HP) has 95 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ecosport. (143 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Mazda RX-7 should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ecosport.
Because 1996 Mazda RX-7 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 Mazda RX-7. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Ford Ecosport, 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 Mazda RX-7 | 2010 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | RX-7 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2616 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
Horse Power | 238 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1240 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 2490 mm |