1952 Allard K2 vs. 2004 Holden UTE
To start off, 2004 Holden UTE is newer by 52 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Allard K2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Allard K2 would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Holden UTE (204 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 119 more horse power than 1952 Allard K2. (85 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 1952 Allard K2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Holden UTE weights approximately 300 kg more than 1952 Allard K2. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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:
| 1952 Allard K2 | 2004 Holden UTE | |
| Make | Allard | Holden |
| Model | K2 | UTE |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3622 cc | 3791 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 85 HP | 204 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 3 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1200 kg | 1500 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4270 mm | 5060 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1490 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2950 mm |
