2002 Jeep Wrangler vs. 1968 ZAZ 966
To start off, 2002 Jeep Wrangler is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 ZAZ 966. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 ZAZ 966 would be higher. At 3,960 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 Jeep Wrangler is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Jeep Wrangler (141 HP @ 3800 RPM) has 103 more horse power than 1968 ZAZ 966. (38 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2002 Jeep Wrangler should accelerate faster than 1968 ZAZ 966.
Because 1968 ZAZ 966 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 1968 ZAZ 966. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Jeep Wrangler, 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, 2002 Jeep Wrangler (319 Nm) has 247 more torque (in Nm) than 1968 ZAZ 966. (72 Nm). This means 2002 Jeep Wrangler will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1968 ZAZ 966.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Jeep Wrangler | 1968 ZAZ 966 | |
| Make | Jeep | ZAZ |
| Model | Wrangler | 966 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1968 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 3960 cc | 1196 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 141 HP | 38 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 319 Nm | 72 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 3950 mm | 3740 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1540 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1810 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2380 mm | 2170 mm |
