1965 Holden EH vs. 2000 Seat Arosa

To start off, 2000 Seat Arosa is newer by 35 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, 2000 Seat Arosa (123 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 1965 Holden EH. (100 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Seat Arosa should accelerate faster than 1965 Holden EH. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Seat Arosa weights approximately 104 kg more than 1965 Holden EH. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1965 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 1965 Holden EH. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Seat Arosa, 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, 1965 Holden EH (238 Nm) has 121 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Seat Arosa. (117 Nm). This means 1965 Holden EH will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Seat Arosa. 1965 Holden EH has automatic transmission and 2000 Seat Arosa has manual transmission. 2000 Seat Arosa will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1965 Holden EH will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: