2000 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 5,670 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 220 kg more than 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Camaro 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 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 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:
| 2000 Chevrolet Camaro | 1983 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Oldsmobile |
| Model | Camaro | Cutlass |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1983 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5670 cc | 2259 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1540 kg | 1320 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4850 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1780 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2680 mm |
