2009 Mazda 3 vs. 1963 Zastava 1300

To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Zastava 1300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Zastava 1300 would be higher. At 1,598 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 3 (104 HP) has 51 more horse power than 1963 Zastava 1300. (53 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1963 Zastava 1300. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Mazda 3 weights approximately 265 kg more than 1963 Zastava 1300. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1963 Zastava 1300 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 Zastava 1300. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 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. Let's talk about torque, 2009 Mazda 3 (145 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 52 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Zastava 1300. (93 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Zastava 1300.

Compare all specifications: