2005 Suzuki Reno vs. 2012 Holden Epica
To start off, 2012 Holden Epica is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Suzuki Reno. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Suzuki Reno would be higher. At 2,492 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Holden Epica is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden Epica (153 HP) has 29 more horse power than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (124 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Holden Epica should accelerate faster than 2005 Suzuki Reno.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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 Epica (237 Nm) has 58 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Suzuki Reno. (179 Nm). This means 2012 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Suzuki Reno. 2005 Suzuki Reno has automatic transmission and 2012 Holden Epica has manual transmission. 2012 Holden Epica will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2005 Suzuki Reno will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Suzuki Reno | 2012 Holden Epica | |
Make | Suzuki | Holden |
Model | Reno | Epica |
Year Released | 2005 | 2012 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1998 cc | 2492 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 124 HP | 153 HP |
Torque | 179 Nm | 237 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4300 mm | 4805 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 9.3 L/100km |