2000 Chevrolet SSR vs. 2009 Holden UTE
To start off, 2009 Holden UTE is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chevrolet SSR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chevrolet SSR would be higher. At 5,324 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet SSR is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chevrolet SSR (300 HP) has 58 more horse power than 2009 Holden UTE. (242 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet SSR should accelerate faster than 2009 Holden UTE.
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 Chevrolet SSR (481 Nm) has 151 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Holden UTE. (330 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet SSR will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Holden UTE. 2000 Chevrolet SSR has automatic transmission and 2009 Holden UTE has manual transmission. 2009 Holden UTE will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Chevrolet SSR will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chevrolet SSR | 2009 Holden UTE | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Holden |
| Model | SSR | UTE |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5324 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 242 HP |
| Torque | 481 Nm | 330 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
