2004 MCC Crossblade vs. 1967 ZAZ 966
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 ZAZ 966. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 ZAZ 966 would be higher. At 886 cc (4 cylinders), 1967 ZAZ 966 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 43 more horse power than 1967 ZAZ 966. (27 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1967 ZAZ 966.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2004 MCC Crossblade (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM) has 50 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 ZAZ 966. (52 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2004 MCC Crossblade will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 ZAZ 966.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 MCC Crossblade | 1967 ZAZ 966 | |
| Make | MCC | ZAZ |
| Model | Crossblade | 966 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1967 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 886 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 27 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 52 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 3740 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1540 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2170 mm |
