1999 Holden Maloo vs. 2003 Renault Clio
To start off, 2003 Renault Clio is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1999 Holden Maloo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1999 Holden Maloo would be higher. At 5,699 cc (8 cylinders), 1999 Holden Maloo is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2003 Renault Clio 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 2003 Renault Clio. 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 242 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Renault Clio. (300 Nm). This means 1999 Holden Maloo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Renault Clio.
Compare all specifications:
| 1999 Holden Maloo | 2003 Renault Clio | |
| Make | Holden | Renault |
| Model | Maloo | Clio |
| Year Released | 1999 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Size | 5699 cc | 2946 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 251 HP |
| Torque | 542 Nm | 300 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 3 seats | 2 seats |
