2002 MCC Crossblade vs. 1965 Zastava 1500
To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Zastava 1500. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Zastava 1500 would be higher. At 1,294 cc (4 cylinders), 1965 Zastava 1500 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 17 more horse power than 1965 Zastava 1500. (53 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2002 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1965 Zastava 1500. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Zastava 1500 weights approximately 240 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 9 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Zastava 1500. (93 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2002 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Zastava 1500.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 MCC Crossblade | 1965 Zastava 1500 | |
| Make | MCC | Zastava |
| Model | Crossblade | 1500 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1965 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1294 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 53 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 93 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 3200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 980 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4040 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1550 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2430 mm |
