1996 Holden XU 6 vs. 2009 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Holden XU 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Holden XU 6 would be higher.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1996 Holden XU 6 (515 Nm) has 155 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 3. (360 Nm). This means 1996 Holden XU 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 3. 1996 Holden XU 6 has automatic transmission and 2009 Mazda 3 has manual transmission. 2009 Mazda 3 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1996 Holden XU 6 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Holden XU 6 | 2009 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Holden | Mazda |
| Model | XU 6 | 3 |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 141 HP |
| Torque | 515 Nm | 360 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
