2003 MCC Crossblade vs. 2012 Holden UTE
To start off, 2012 Holden UTE is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 6,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden UTE (357 HP) has 287 more horse power than 2003 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 2003 MCC Crossblade.
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, 2012 Holden UTE (530 Nm) has 428 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm). This means 2012 Holden UTE will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 MCC Crossblade | 2012 Holden UTE | |
| Make | MCC | Holden |
| Model | Crossblade | UTE |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
| Engine Size | 598 cc | 6000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 357 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 530 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
