2006 Mazda 2 vs. 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 2006 Mazda 2 is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 3,789 cc (6 cylinders), 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass weights approximately 320 kg more than 2006 Mazda 2.
Because 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass 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 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 2, 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. 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 2006 Mazda 2 has manual transmission. 2006 Mazda 2 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda 2 | 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
Make | Mazda | Oldsmobile |
Model | 2 | Cutlass |
Year Released | 2006 | 1982 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1399 cc | 3789 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 67 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1160 kg | 1480 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3930 mm | 5030 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1380 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2500 mm | 2760 mm |