1998 Renault Clio vs. 1960 Toyota Master RR
To start off, 1998 Renault Clio is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Toyota Master RR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Toyota Master RR would be higher. At 1,453 cc, 1960 Toyota Master RR is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1998 Renault Clio (79 HP) has 39 more horse power than 1960 Toyota Master RR. (40 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1998 Renault Clio should accelerate faster than 1960 Toyota Master RR. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Toyota Master RR weights approximately 340 kg more than 1998 Renault Clio.
Because 1960 Toyota Master RR 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 1960 Toyota Master RR. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1998 Renault Clio, 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:
| 1998 Renault Clio | 1960 Toyota Master RR | |
| Make | Renault | Toyota |
| Model | Clio | Master RR |
| Year Released | 1998 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1388 cc | 1453 cc |
| Horse Power | 79 HP | 40 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 870 kg | 1210 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3780 mm | 4280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1650 mm | 1680 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2480 mm | 2540 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 L | 75 L |
