2000 Holden HRT vs. 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 2000 Holden HRT is newer by 30 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 5,735 cc (8 cylinders), 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass 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 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Holden HRT, 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 Holden HRT (815 Nm) has 435 more torque (in Nm) than 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass. (380 Nm). This means 2000 Holden HRT will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass. 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 2000 Holden HRT has manual transmission. 2000 Holden HRT will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Holden HRT | 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
Make | Holden | Oldsmobile |
Model | HRT | Cutlass |
Year Released | 2000 | 1970 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5000 cc | 5735 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 160 HP |
Torque | 815 Nm | 380 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |