2003 Mazda 3 vs. 1962 Zastava 750

To start off, 2003 Mazda 3 is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Zastava 750. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Zastava 750 would be higher. At 1,970 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Mazda 3 (143 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 119 more horse power than 1962 Zastava 750. (24 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1962 Zastava 750. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Mazda 3 weights approximately 705 kg more than 1962 Zastava 750. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1962 Zastava 750 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 1962 Zastava 750. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 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, 2003 Mazda 3 (187 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 141 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Zastava 750. (46 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Zastava 750.

Compare all specifications: