2000 Ford Puma vs. 1979 Mazda 626
To start off, 2000 Ford Puma is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1979 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1979 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 1,586 cc (4 cylinders), 1979 Mazda 626 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1979 Mazda 626 weights approximately 35 kg more than 2000 Ford Puma.
Because 1979 Mazda 626 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 1979 Mazda 626. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Ford Puma, 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 Ford Puma | 1979 Mazda 626 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Puma | 626 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1979 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1387 cc | 1586 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1010 kg | 1045 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3990 mm | 4310 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1670 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1380 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2450 mm | 2520 mm |