1964 Holden EH vs. 2009 Honda CR-V
To start off, 2009 Honda CR-V is newer by 45 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 2,928 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Holden EH is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Honda CR-V (164 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 64 more horse power than 1964 Holden EH. (100 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Honda CR-V should accelerate faster than 1964 Holden EH.
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, 2009 Honda CR-V, 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 76 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Honda CR-V. (161 Nm @ 4200 RPM). This means 1964 Holden EH will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Honda CR-V.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Holden EH | 2009 Honda CR-V | |
Make | Holden | Honda |
Model | EH | CR-V |
Year Released | 1964 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2928 cc | 2354 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 164 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 237 Nm | 161 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1600 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Length | 4520 mm | 3910 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2630 mm |