1972 AMC Matador vs. 1999 Holden Maloo
To start off, 1999 Holden Maloo is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1972 AMC Matador. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1972 AMC Matador would be higher. At 6,571 cc (8 cylinders), 1972 AMC Matador is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1972 AMC Matador 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 1972 AMC Matador. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Holden Maloo, 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, 1999 Holden Maloo (542 Nm) has 74 more torque (in Nm) than 1972 AMC Matador. (468 Nm). This means 1999 Holden Maloo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1972 AMC Matador. 1972 AMC Matador has automatic transmission and 1999 Holden Maloo has manual transmission. 1999 Holden Maloo will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1972 AMC Matador will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1972 AMC Matador | 1999 Holden Maloo | |
Make | AMC | Holden |
Model | Matador | Maloo |
Year Released | 1972 | 1999 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6571 cc | 5699 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 255 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 468 Nm | 542 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |