1952 Holden FX vs. 1975 Mazda RX-3
To start off, 1975 Mazda RX-3 is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1975 Mazda RX-3 (100 HP) has 49 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1975 Mazda RX-3 should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Holden FX weights approximately 120 kg more than 1975 Mazda RX-3.
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. Let's talk about torque, both vehicles can yield 136 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Holden FX | 1975 Mazda RX-3 | |
| Make | Holden | Mazda |
| Model | FX | RX-3 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1975 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2166 cc | 1964 cc |
| Engine Type | in-line | dual-disk rotary |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 100 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 136 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 850 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 4090 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1600 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2320 mm |
