1999 Holden Maloo vs. 1960 Triumph Herald
To start off, 1999 Holden Maloo is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Triumph Herald. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Triumph Herald would be higher. At 5,699 cc (8 cylinders), 1999 Holden Maloo is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1960 Triumph Herald 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 1960 Triumph Herald. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Holden Maloo, 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, 1999 Holden Maloo (542 Nm) has 473 more torque (in Nm) than 1960 Triumph Herald. (69 Nm). This means 1999 Holden Maloo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1960 Triumph Herald.
Compare all specifications:
| 1999 Holden Maloo | 1960 Triumph Herald | |
| Make | Holden | Triumph |
| Model | Maloo | Herald |
| Year Released | 1999 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5699 cc | 948 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 35 HP |
| Torque | 542 Nm | 69 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 3 seats | 5 seats |
