1964 Holden EJ vs. 2009 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,260 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 3 (104 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 1964 Holden EJ. (64 HP @ 4200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1964 Holden EJ. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Holden EJ weights approximately 2 kg more than 2009 Mazda 3.
Because 1964 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 1964 Holden EJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 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, 1964 Holden EJ (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM) has 18 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 3. (145 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1964 Holden EJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Holden EJ | 2009 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Holden | Mazda |
Model | EJ | 3 |
Year Released | 1964 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2260 cc | 1598 cc |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 64 HP | 104 HP |
Engine RPM | 4200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 163 Nm | 145 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1130 kg | 1128 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1700 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2650 mm |