2000 MCC ForTwo vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 MCC ForTwo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 MCC ForTwo would be higher. At 1,560 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Mazda 3 (113 HP @ 3600 RPM) has 73 more horse power than 2000 MCC ForTwo. (40 HP @ 4200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 2000 MCC ForTwo.
Because 2000 MCC ForTwo 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 MCC ForTwo. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Mazda 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, 2012 Mazda 3 (270 Nm @ 1750 RPM) has 170 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 MCC ForTwo. (100 Nm @ 1800 RPM). This means 2012 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 MCC ForTwo.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 MCC ForTwo | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | MCC | Mazda |
| Model | ForTwo | 3 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Rear | Front |
| Engine Size | 799 cc | 1560 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 40 HP | 113 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4200 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Torque | 100 Nm | 270 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1800 RPM | 1750 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 5-speed manual |
| Vehicle Length | 2510 mm | 4590 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1550 mm | 1755 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1540 mm | 1471 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2639 mm |
