1965 Holden EH vs. 1983 Toyota Cressida
To start off, 1983 Toyota Cressida is newer by 18 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Holden EH. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Holden EH would be higher. At 2,930 cc (6 cylinders), 1965 Holden EH is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1983 Toyota Cressida (104 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 1965 Holden EH. (100 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1983 Toyota Cressida should accelerate faster than 1965 Holden EH. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Holden EH weights approximately 15 kg more than 1983 Toyota Cressida.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1965 Holden EH (238 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 76 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Toyota Cressida. (162 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 1965 Holden EH will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Toyota Cressida.
Compare all specifications:
1965 Holden EH | 1983 Toyota Cressida | |
Make | Holden | Toyota |
Model | EH | Cressida |
Year Released | 1965 | 1983 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2930 cc | 1972 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 104 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 238 Nm | 162 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1600 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1185 kg | 1170 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4650 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2650 mm |