1966 Holden HD vs. 2010 Renault Megane
To start off, 2010 Renault Megane is newer by 44 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, 2010 Renault Megane (221 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 1966 Holden HD. (122 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Renault Megane 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, 2010 Renault Megane, 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, 2010 Renault Megane (300 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 63 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Holden HD. (237 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 2010 Renault Megane will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Holden HD.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Holden HD | 2010 Renault Megane | |
| Make | Holden | Renault |
| Model | HD | Megane |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2930 cc | 1997 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 122 HP | 221 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 237 Nm | 300 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2200 RPM | 3000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Length | 4580 mm | 4230 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 2030 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2630 mm |
