1963 Holden EJ vs. 2006 Rover 75
To start off, 2006 Rover 75 is newer by 43 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 4,601 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Rover 75 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Rover 75 (256 HP) has 192 more horse power than 1963 Holden EJ. (64 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Rover 75 should accelerate faster than 1963 Holden EJ.
Because 1963 Holden EJ 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 1963 Holden EJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Rover 75, 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, 2006 Rover 75 (245 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 82 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Holden EJ. (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM). This means 2006 Rover 75 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Holden EJ.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Holden EJ | 2006 Rover 75 | |
| Make | Holden | Rover |
| Model | EJ | 75 |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2262 cc | 4601 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 64 HP | 256 HP |
| Torque | 163 Nm | 245 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4750 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2750 mm |
