1965 Holden EH vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 41 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, 2006 Mazda 3 (105 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 5 more horse power than 1965 Holden EH. (100 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1965 Holden EH.
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, 2006 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, 1965 Holden EH (238 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 93 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda 3. (145 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1965 Holden EH will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 1965 Holden EH | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Holden | Mazda |
| Model | EH | 3 |
| Year Released | 1965 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2930 cc | 1596 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 105 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 238 Nm | 145 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1185 kg | 1185 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2650 mm |
