1963 Holden EJ vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 49 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, 2012 Mazda 3 (113 HP @ 3600 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 1963 Holden EJ. (64 HP @ 4200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Mazda 3 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, 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 107 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Holden EJ. (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM). This means 2012 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Holden EJ.
Compare all specifications:
1963 Holden EJ | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Holden | Mazda |
Model | EJ | 3 |
Year Released | 1963 | 2012 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 1560 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 64 HP | 113 HP |
Engine RPM | 4200 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Torque | 163 Nm | 270 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 1750 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2639 mm |