1980 Bristol 412 vs. 2009 Chevrolet Epica
To start off, 2009 Chevrolet Epica is newer by 29 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Bristol 412. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Bristol 412 would be higher. At 5,896 cc (8 cylinders), 1980 Bristol 412 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Bristol 412 weights approximately 115 kg more than 2009 Chevrolet Epica.
Because 1980 Bristol 412 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 1980 Bristol 412. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Chevrolet Epica, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1980 Bristol 412 | 2009 Chevrolet Epica | |
| Make | Bristol | Chevrolet |
| Model | 412 | Epica |
| Year Released | 1980 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5896 cc | 2490 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 154 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1690 kg | 1575 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4950 mm | 4810 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1820 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2910 mm | 2710 mm |
