2000 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1986 Mazda 626
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Mazda 626 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 106 kg more than 1986 Mazda 626.
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, 1986 Mazda 626, 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, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro (454 Nm) has 283 more torque (in Nm) than 1986 Mazda 626. (171 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1986 Mazda 626.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Camaro | 1986 Mazda 626 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Camaro | 626 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1986 |
Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5670 cc | 1998 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 117 HP |
Torque | 454 Nm | 171 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1188 kg | 1082 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4440 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1710 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2520 mm |