DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

1996 Ford Econoline vs 1996 Holden Commodore Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Ford Econoline

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points.

73.5–72.75
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

FordMakeHolden
EconolineModelCommodore
1996Model year1996
MinivanBody typeSedan
8Seats5
4Doors4

Performance

—0–100 km/h8,0 s
160 km/hTop speed200 km/h
4601 ccEngine displacement4981 cc
218 HPPower248 HP
393 NmTorque400 Nm
8Cylinders8

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
132 ltFuel tank80 lt
16,8 ltUrban consumption—
12,4 ltExtra-urban consumption—
—Average consumption13,1 lt

Transmission & Chassis

Rear-wheel driveDrivetrainRear-wheel drive
4Gears5
235/75 R15Tyre size205/65 R15 H
—ABSYes

Dimensions

5382 mmLength4861 mm
2014 mmWidth1794 mm
2050 mmHeight1448 mm
—Weight1400 Kg
3505 mmWheelbase2731 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

1996 Ford Econoline and 1996 Holden Commodore approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Ford Econoline leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.75 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…