1946 Alfa Romeo 6C vs. 2003 MCC Smart
To start off, 2003 MCC Smart is newer by 57 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C would be higher. At 2,443 cc (6 cylinders), 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C (89 HP) has 16 more horse power than 2003 MCC Smart. (73 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C should accelerate faster than 2003 MCC Smart. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C weights approximately 535 kg more than 2003 MCC Smart. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C 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 1946 Alfa Romeo 6C. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 MCC Smart, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1946 Alfa Romeo 6C | 2003 MCC Smart | |
Make | Alfa Romeo | MCC |
Model | 6C | Smart |
Year Released | 1946 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2443 cc | 1124 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 73 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1500 kg | 965 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 3760 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 2510 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 77 L | 47 L |