2004 MCC Crossblade vs. 2012 Holden Cruze
To start off, 2012 Holden Cruze is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 MCC Crossblade. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 MCC Crossblade would be higher. At 1,991 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Holden Cruze is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden Cruze (161 HP) has 91 more horse power than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Holden Cruze should accelerate faster than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
Because 2004 MCC Crossblade 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 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Holden Cruze, 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, 2012 Holden Cruze (360 Nm) has 258 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm). This means 2012 Holden Cruze will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 MCC Crossblade | 2012 Holden Cruze | |
| Make | MCC | Holden |
| Model | Crossblade | Cruze |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 1991 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 161 HP |
| Torque | 102 Nm | 360 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4597 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1788 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1477 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2685 mm |
