2000 Chevrolet Astro vs. 1965 Mazda R 360
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Astro is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Mazda R 360. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Mazda R 360 would be higher. At 4,300 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Astro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Chevrolet Astro weights approximately 803 kg more than 1965 Mazda R 360.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Astro is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1965 Mazda R 360. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Astro will offer significantly more control. 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, 2000 Chevrolet Astro (339 Nm) has 317 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Mazda R 360. (22 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Astro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Mazda R 360.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Astro | 1965 Mazda R 360 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Astro | R 360 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1965 |
Body Type | Minivan | Coupe |
Engine Size | 4300 cc | 356 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 2 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 16 HP |
Torque | 339 Nm | 22 Nm |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Number of Seats | 8 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1187 kg | 384 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 2990 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1300 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1940 mm | 1300 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 1770 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 55 L |