1999 Holden Maloo vs. 2012 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2012 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 13 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 2012 Chevrolet Camaro 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 2012 Chevrolet Camaro. 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 166 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Chevrolet Camaro. (376 Nm). This means 1999 Holden Maloo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Chevrolet Camaro. 2012 Chevrolet Camaro has automatic transmission and 1999 Holden Maloo has manual transmission. 1999 Holden Maloo will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2012 Chevrolet Camaro will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1999 Holden Maloo | 2012 Chevrolet Camaro | |
| Make | Holden | Chevrolet |
| Model | Maloo | Camaro |
| Year Released | 1999 | 2012 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5699 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 323 HP |
| Torque | 542 Nm | 376 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 3 seats | 4 seats |
