2003 MG ZR vs. 1965 Seat 600
To start off, 2003 MG ZR is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Seat 600. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Seat 600 would be higher. At 1,794 cc (4 cylinders), 2003 MG ZR is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 MG ZR weights approximately 545 kg more than 1965 Seat 600.
Because 1965 Seat 600 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 1965 Seat 600. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 MG ZR, 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 MG ZR (174 Nm @ 4700 RPM) has 127 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 Seat 600. (47 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2003 MG ZR will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 Seat 600.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 MG ZR | 1965 Seat 600 | |
| Make | MG | Seat |
| Model | ZR | 600 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 1794 cc | 767 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 158 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 174 Nm | 47 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4700 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1120 kg | 575 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4020 mm | 3300 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1390 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2510 mm | 2010 mm |
