2006 Mazda RX-8 vs. 2010 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2010 Holden Commodore is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda RX-8. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda RX-8 would be higher. At 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 132 more horse power than 2006 Mazda RX-8. (228 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda RX-8.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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, 2010 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 79 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda RX-8. (211 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Mazda RX-8 | 2010 Holden Commodore | |
| Make | Mazda | Holden |
| Model | RX-8 | Commodore |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1308 cc | 5976 cc |
| Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | V |
| Horse Power | 228 HP | 360 HP |
| Torque | 211 Nm | 290 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 14.4 L/100km |
