1984 Mazda Cosmo vs. 2010 Holden Epica
To start off, 2010 Holden Epica is newer by 26 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1984 Mazda Cosmo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1984 Mazda Cosmo would be higher. At 2,616 cc (2 cylinders), 1984 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 148 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar.
Because 1984 Mazda Cosmo 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 1984 Mazda Cosmo. 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 119 more torque (in Nm) than 1984 Mazda Cosmo. (201 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1984 Mazda Cosmo.
Compare all specifications:
| 1984 Mazda Cosmo | 2010 Holden Epica | |
| Make | Mazda | Holden |
| Model | Cosmo | Epica |
| Year Released | 1984 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2616 cc | 1991 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 148 HP |
| Torque | 201 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 4805 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2700 mm |
