2000 Ford e-Ka vs. 1964 Holden EJ
To start off, 2000 Ford e-Ka is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,260 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford e-Ka (89 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 25 more horse power than 1964 Holden EJ. (64 HP @ 4200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford e-Ka should accelerate faster than 1964 Holden EJ. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford e-Ka weights approximately 78 kg more than 1964 Holden EJ. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1964 Holden EJ 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 1964 Holden EJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Ford e-Ka, 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, 2000 Ford e-Ka (190 Nm) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Holden EJ. (163 Nm). This means 2000 Ford e-Ka will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Holden EJ.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Ford e-Ka | 1964 Holden EJ | |
Make | Ford | Holden |
Model | e-Ka | EJ |
Year Released | 2000 | 1964 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1758 cc | 2260 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 64 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4200 RPM |
Torque | 190 Nm | 163 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1208 kg | 1130 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2680 mm |