2006 Chevrolet Kodiak vs. 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist would be higher. At 6,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak 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 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist, 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, 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak (820 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 724 more torque (in Nm) than 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist. (96 Nm @ 3300 RPM). This means 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak | 1990 Wartburg 1.3 l Tourist | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Wartburg |
| Model | Kodiak | 1.3 l Tourist |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1990 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6600 cc | 1272 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 57 HP |
| Torque | 820 Nm | 96 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1600 RPM | 3300 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Width | 2000 mm | 1650 mm |
