2003 Alfa Romeo GT vs. 2012 SsangYong Stavic
To start off, 2012 SsangYong Stavic is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Alfa Romeo GT would be higher. At 3,199 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 SsangYong Stavic is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 SsangYong Stavic (217 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 69 more horse power than 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. (148 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 SsangYong Stavic should accelerate faster than 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 SsangYong Stavic weights approximately 534 kg more than 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2012 SsangYong Stavic is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 SsangYong Stavic will offer significantly more control. 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 SsangYong Stavic (312 Nm @ 4600 RPM) has 7 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. (305 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2012 SsangYong Stavic will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Alfa Romeo GT. 2012 SsangYong Stavic has automatic transmission and 2003 Alfa Romeo GT has manual transmission. 2003 Alfa Romeo GT will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2012 SsangYong Stavic will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Alfa Romeo GT | 2012 SsangYong Stavic | |
| Make | Alfa Romeo | SsangYong |
| Model | GT | Stavic |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Minivan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1910 cc | 3199 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 217 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6100 RPM |
| Torque | 305 Nm | 312 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 82 mm | 89.9 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 90.4 mm | 84 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 18.0:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1500 kg | 2034 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 5130 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1920 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 3010 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 6.7 L/100km | 9.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 80 L |
