2000 Caterham 7 vs. 1963 Holden EJ
To start off, 2000 Caterham 7 is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,262 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Caterham 7 (230 HP @ 8600 RPM) has 166 more horse power than 1963 Holden EJ. (64 HP @ 4200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 1963 Holden EJ. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Holden EJ weights approximately 674 kg more than 2000 Caterham 7.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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, 2000 Caterham 7 (210 Nm @ 7200 RPM) has 47 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Holden EJ. (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM). This means 2000 Caterham 7 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Holden EJ.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Caterham 7 | 1963 Holden EJ | |
Make | Caterham | Holden |
Model | 7 | EJ |
Year Released | 2000 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1795 cc | 2262 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 230 HP | 64 HP |
Engine RPM | 8600 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Torque | 210 Nm | 163 Nm |
Torque RPM | 7200 RPM | 1400 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 460 kg | 1134 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1740 mm |
Vehicle Height | 810 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2230 mm | 2680 mm |