1963 Holden EJ vs. 2004 MCC Crossblade
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,262 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 MCC Crossblade (70 HP) has 6 more horse power than 1963 Holden EJ. (64 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 MCC Crossblade should accelerate faster than 1963 Holden EJ. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Holden EJ weights approximately 394 kg more than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
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, 1963 Holden EJ (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM) has 61 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1963 Holden EJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Holden EJ | 2004 MCC Crossblade | |
| Make | Holden | MCC |
| Model | EJ | Crossblade |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2004 |
| Engine Size | 2262 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 64 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 163 Nm | 102 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 3210 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1134 kg | 740 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 2630 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 1810 mm |
