2004 Mazda B2300 vs. 2010 Holden Epica
To start off, 2010 Holden Epica is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda B2300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda B2300 would be higher. At 2,492 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Holden Epica is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Holden Epica (153 HP) has 10 more horse power than 2004 Mazda B2300. (143 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Holden Epica should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda B2300.
Because 2004 Mazda B2300 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 2004 Mazda B2300. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Holden Epica, 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, 2010 Holden Epica (237 Nm) has 28 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda B2300. (209 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda B2300.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Mazda B2300 | 2010 Holden Epica | |
Make | Mazda | Holden |
Model | B2300 | Epica |
Year Released | 2004 | 2010 |
Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 2492 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 153 HP |
Torque | 209 Nm | 237 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 3 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5130 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.1 L/100km | 9.3 L/100km |