2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer vs. 2010 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2010 Holden Commodore is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer would be higher. At 4,161 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer (275 HP) has 35 more horse power than 2010 Holden Commodore. (240 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer should accelerate faster than 2010 Holden Commodore.
Because 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Holden Commodore. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer will offer significantly more control. 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, 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer (373 Nm) has 133 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Holden Commodore. (240 Nm). This means 2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Holden Commodore.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet TrailBlazer | 2010 Holden Commodore | |
Make | Chevrolet | Holden |
Model | TrailBlazer | Commodore |
Year Released | 2004 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4161 cc | 2564 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 275 HP | 240 HP |
Torque | 373 Nm | 240 Nm |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.7 L/100km | 10.9 L/100km |