2002 Ford Ka vs. 2006 Holden Epica
To start off, 2006 Holden Epica is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Ford Ka. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Ford Ka would be higher. At 2,492 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Holden Epica is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Holden Epica (153 HP) has 18 more horse power than 2002 Ford Ka. (135 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Holden Epica should accelerate faster than 2002 Ford Ka.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2006 Holden Epica (237 Nm) has 62 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Ford Ka. (175 Nm). This means 2006 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Ford Ka.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Ford Ka | 2006 Holden Epica | |
Make | Ford | Holden |
Model | Ka | Epica |
Year Released | 2002 | 2006 |
Body Type | Roadster | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1596 cc | 2492 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 135 HP | 153 HP |
Torque | 175 Nm | 237 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 3660 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2450 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.9 L/100km | 9.3 L/100km |