2000 Chrysler ESX 3 vs. 1962 Zastava 750

To start off, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Zastava 750. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Zastava 750 would be higher. At 1,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 (74 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 1962 Zastava 750. (24 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 should accelerate faster than 1962 Zastava 750. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 weights approximately 1015 kg more than 1962 Zastava 750. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1962 Zastava 750 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 1962 Zastava 750. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3, 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 Chrysler ESX 3 (332 Nm) has 286 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Zastava 750. (46 Nm). This means 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Zastava 750. 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 has automatic transmission and 1962 Zastava 750 has manual transmission. 1962 Zastava 750 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: