1997 Mitsubishi Colt vs. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass

To start off, 1997 Mitsubishi Colt is newer by 17 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 4,343 cc (8 cylinders), 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass (120 HP @ 3600 RPM) has 46 more horse power than 1997 Mitsubishi Colt. (74 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass should accelerate faster than 1997 Mitsubishi Colt. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass weights approximately 541 kg more than 1997 Mitsubishi Colt. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

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, 1997 Mitsubishi Colt, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass (305 Nm) has 197 more torque (in Nm) than 1997 Mitsubishi Colt. (108 Nm). This means 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1997 Mitsubishi Colt. 1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 1997 Mitsubishi Colt has manual transmission. 1997 Mitsubishi Colt 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: