1966 Holden HD vs. 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Holden HD. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Holden HD would be higher. At 2,930 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Holden HD is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass (163 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 1966 Holden HD. (122 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass should accelerate faster than 1966 Holden HD.
Because 1966 Holden HD 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 1966 Holden HD. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 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, both vehicles can yield 237 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Holden HD | 1990 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
| Make | Holden | Oldsmobile |
| Model | HD | Cutlass |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1990 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2930 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 122 HP | 163 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 237 Nm | 237 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1200 kg | 1200 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4580 mm | 4550 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1710 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1330 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2640 mm |
