1960 Holden FC vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 52 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Holden FC. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Holden FC would be higher. At 2,165 cc (6 cylinders), 1960 Holden FC is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Mazda 3 (113 HP @ 3600 RPM) has 51 more horse power than 1960 Holden FC. (62 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1960 Holden FC.
Because 1960 Holden FC 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 1960 Holden FC. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 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, 2012 Mazda 3 (270 Nm @ 1750 RPM) has 120 more torque (in Nm) than 1960 Holden FC. (150 Nm @ 1400 RPM). This means 2012 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1960 Holden FC.
Compare all specifications:
1960 Holden FC | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Holden | Mazda |
Model | FC | 3 |
Year Released | 1960 | 2012 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2165 cc | 1560 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 62 HP | 113 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Torque | 150 Nm | 270 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 1750 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 5-speed manual |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1560 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2639 mm |