2000 Mazda 626 vs. 1965 Plymouth Valiant
To start off, 2000 Mazda 626 is newer by 35 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Plymouth Valiant. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Plymouth Valiant would be higher. At 2,789 cc (6 cylinders), 1965 Plymouth Valiant is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 100 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
Because 1965 Plymouth Valiant 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 1965 Plymouth Valiant. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Mazda 626 | 1965 Plymouth Valiant | |
| Make | Mazda | Plymouth |
| Model | 626 | Valiant |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1769 cc | 2789 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 100 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4790 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2700 mm |
