2006 Chevrolet HHR vs. 1964 Holden EH
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet HHR is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Holden EH. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Holden EH would be higher. At 2,929 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Holden EH is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Chevrolet HHR (143 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 43 more horse power than 1964 Holden EH. (100 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Chevrolet HHR should accelerate faster than 1964 Holden EH.
Because 1964 Holden EH 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 1964 Holden EH. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Chevrolet HHR, 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, 1964 Holden EH (237 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 34 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (203 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1964 Holden EH will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Chevrolet HHR | 1964 Holden EH | |
Make | Chevrolet | Holden |
Model | HHR | EH |
Year Released | 2006 | 1964 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2194 cc | 2929 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 100 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 203 Nm | 237 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 1600 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 4560 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1740 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1490 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2680 mm |