2003 Mazda 2 vs. 1984 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2003 Mazda 2 is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1984 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1984 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 2,473 cc (6 cylinders), 1984 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1984 Chevrolet Camaro (89 HP) has 8 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 2. (81 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1984 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 2.
Because 1984 Chevrolet Camaro 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 1984 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 2, 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, 1984 Chevrolet Camaro (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 38 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 2. (141 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1984 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 2.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Mazda 2 | 1984 Chevrolet Camaro | |
Make | Mazda | Chevrolet |
Model | 2 | Camaro |
Year Released | 2003 | 1984 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1498 cc | 2473 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 81 HP | 89 HP |
Torque | 141 Nm | 179 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3930 mm | 4880 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1860 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2500 mm | 2580 mm |