1964 Holden EH vs. 2000 Plymouth Neon
To start off, 2000 Plymouth Neon is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Holden EH. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Holden EH would be higher. At 2,929 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Holden EH is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Holden EH (100 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 2000 Plymouth Neon. (59 HP @ 3600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Holden EH should accelerate faster than 2000 Plymouth Neon.
Because 1964 Holden EH 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 1964 Holden EH. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Plymouth Neon, 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, 1964 Holden EH (237 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 77 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Plymouth Neon. (160 Nm @ 1500 RPM). This means 1964 Holden EH will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Plymouth Neon.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Holden EH | 2000 Plymouth Neon | |
| Make | Holden | Plymouth |
| Model | EH | Neon |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2929 cc | 1687 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 59 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Torque | 237 Nm | 160 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1600 RPM | 1500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4370 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2650 mm |
