2000 Caterham 7 vs. 2009 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2009 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Caterham 7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Caterham 7 would be higher. At 1,306 cc, 2009 Mazda RX-8 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda RX-8 (232 HP @ 8500 RPM) has 62 more horse power than 2000 Caterham 7. (170 HP @ 10750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2000 Caterham 7.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Mazda RX-8 (216 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 91 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Caterham 7. (125 Nm @ 8250 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda RX-8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Caterham 7.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Caterham 7 | 2009 Mazda RX-8 | |
Make | Caterham | Mazda |
Model | 7 | RX-8 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1137 cc | 1306 cc |
Engine Type | in-line | dual-disk rotary |
Horse Power | 170 HP | 232 HP |
Engine RPM | 10750 RPM | 8500 RPM |
Torque | 125 Nm | 216 Nm |
Torque RPM | 8250 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4470 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1010 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2710 mm |