2006 Mazda 3 vs. 1963 NSU 1000 C
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 NSU 1000 C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 NSU 1000 C would be higher. At 1,598 cc, 2006 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda 3 weights approximately 600 kg more than 1963 NSU 1000 C.
Because 1963 NSU 1000 C 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 1963 NSU 1000 C. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Mazda 3 | 1963 NSU 1000 C | |
| Make | Mazda | NSU |
| Model | 3 | 1000 C |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 1598 cc | 996 cc |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 39 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 78 mm | 69 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 83.6 mm | 66.6 mm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1240 kg | 640 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3790 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1490 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2260 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 44 L |
