1996 Mazda RX-7 vs. 2010 Holden Epica
To start off, 2010 Holden Epica is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mazda RX-7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mazda RX-7 would be higher. At 2,616 cc, 1996 Mazda RX-7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Mazda RX-7 (238 HP) has 90 more horse power than 2010 Holden Epica. (148 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Mazda RX-7 should accelerate faster than 2010 Holden Epica.
Because 1996 Mazda RX-7 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 1996 Mazda RX-7. 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 24 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Mazda RX-7. (296 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Mazda RX-7.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Mazda RX-7 | 2010 Holden Epica | |
Make | Mazda | Holden |
Model | RX-7 | Epica |
Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2616 cc | 1991 cc |
Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
Horse Power | 238 HP | 148 HP |
Torque | 296 Nm | 320 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4320 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1240 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 2700 mm |