2004 Caterham 7 vs. 2010 Mazda 3
To start off, 2010 Mazda 3 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Caterham 7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Caterham 7 would be higher. At 2,184 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Caterham 7 (251 HP @ 8000 RPM) has 103 more horse power than 2010 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 3500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 2010 Mazda 3.
Because 2004 Caterham 7 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 2004 Caterham 7. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 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, 2010 Mazda 3 (360 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 102 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Caterham 7. (258 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Caterham 7.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Caterham 7 | 2010 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Caterham | Mazda |
Model | 7 | 3 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1997 cc | 2184 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 251 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 8000 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Torque | 258 Nm | 360 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 1800 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 5-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 810 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2230 mm | 2639 mm |