1952 Holden FX vs. 1977 Mazda Cosmo

To start off, 1977 Mazda Cosmo is newer by 25 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, 1977 Mazda Cosmo (93 HP) has 42 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1977 Mazda Cosmo should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1977 Mazda Cosmo weights approximately 120 kg more than 1952 Holden FX. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1977 Mazda Cosmo (150 Nm @ 3300 RPM) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Holden FX. (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1977 Mazda Cosmo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Holden FX. 1977 Mazda Cosmo has automatic transmission and 1952 Holden FX has manual transmission. 1952 Holden FX will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1977 Mazda Cosmo will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: