1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass vs. 2004 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2004 Ford Ecosport is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 3,135 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass (150 HP) has 41 more horse power than 2004 Ford Ecosport. (109 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Ecosport.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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. 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 2004 Ford Ecosport has manual transmission. 2004 Ford Ecosport will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Oldsmobile Cutlass | 2004 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Oldsmobile | Ford |
| Model | Cutlass | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3135 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 150 HP | 109 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4850 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2490 mm |
