1982 Holden Commodore vs. 2004 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2004 Ford Ecosport is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Holden Commodore. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Holden Commodore would be higher. At 1,892 cc (4 cylinders), 1982 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1982 Holden Commodore (78 HP) has 11 more horse power than 2004 Ford Ecosport. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1982 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Ecosport.
Because 1982 Holden Commodore 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 1982 Holden Commodore. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Ford Ecosport, 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:
1982 Holden Commodore | 2004 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Holden | Ford |
Model | Commodore | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1982 | 2004 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1892 cc | 1400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 78 HP | 67 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4710 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2490 mm |