2004 Holden Combo vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Holden Combo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Holden Combo would be higher. At 1,998 cc, 2006 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda 3 (139 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 52 more horse power than 2004 Holden Combo. (87 HP @ 5400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 2004 Holden Combo. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Holden Combo weights approximately 66 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3.
Because 2006 Mazda 3 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 2006 Mazda 3. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Holden Combo, 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, 2006 Mazda 3 (182 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 49 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Holden Combo. (133 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2006 Mazda 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Holden Combo.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Holden Combo | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Holden | Mazda |
| Model | Combo | 3 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1598 cc | 1998 cc |
| Horse Power | 87 HP | 139 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5400 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 133 Nm | 182 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1200 kg | 1134 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4330 mm | 4710 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1810 mm | 1490 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2650 mm |
