2003 MCC Crossblade vs. 1982 Zastava 102
To start off, 2003 MCC Crossblade is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Zastava 102. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Zastava 102 would be higher. At 1,299 cc (4 cylinders), 1982 Zastava 102 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 21 more horse power than 1982 Zastava 102. (49 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2003 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1982 Zastava 102. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1982 Zastava 102 weights approximately 30 kg more than 2003 MCC Crossblade.
Let's talk about torque, 2003 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 7 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Zastava 102. (95 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2003 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Zastava 102.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 MCC Crossblade | 1982 Zastava 102 | |
| Make | MCC | Zastava |
| Model | Crossblade | 102 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1982 |
| Engine Size | 598 cc | 1299 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 49 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 95 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 770 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1550 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2160 mm |
