2005 Volkswagen Polo vs. 1965 ZAZ 966
To start off, 2005 Volkswagen Polo is newer by 40 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 ZAZ 966. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 ZAZ 966 would be higher. At 1,595 cc (4 cylinders), 2005 Volkswagen Polo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Volkswagen Polo (100 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 73 more horse power than 1965 ZAZ 966. (27 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Volkswagen Polo should accelerate faster than 1965 ZAZ 966.
Because 1965 ZAZ 966 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 ZAZ 966. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Volkswagen Polo, 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, 2005 Volkswagen Polo (140 Nm @ 3250 RPM) has 88 more torque (in Nm) than 1965 ZAZ 966. (52 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2005 Volkswagen Polo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1965 ZAZ 966.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Volkswagen Polo | 1965 ZAZ 966 | |
| Make | Volkswagen | ZAZ |
| Model | Polo | 966 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1965 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 1595 cc | 887 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 27 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 140 Nm | 52 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3250 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2170 mm |
