1982 Skoda Rapid R vs. 2010 Holden Epica
To start off, 2010 Holden Epica is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Skoda Rapid R. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Skoda Rapid R would be higher. At 1,991 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Holden Epica is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Holden Epica (148 HP) has 86 more horse power than 1982 Skoda Rapid R. (62 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Holden Epica should accelerate faster than 1982 Skoda Rapid R.
Because 1982 Skoda Rapid R 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 Skoda Rapid R. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Holden 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. Let's talk about torque, 2010 Holden Epica (320 Nm) has 221 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Skoda Rapid R. (99 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Skoda Rapid R.
Compare all specifications:
| 1982 Skoda Rapid R | 2010 Holden Epica | |
| Make | Skoda | Holden |
| Model | Rapid R | Epica |
| Year Released | 1982 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Rear | Front |
| Engine Size | 1287 cc | 1991 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 62 HP | 148 HP |
| Torque | 99 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4170 mm | 4805 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1600 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2410 mm | 2700 mm |
