1950 Holden FX vs. 1996 Renault Clio
To start off, 1996 Renault Clio is newer by 46 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1950 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1950 Holden FX would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Renault Clio is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Renault Clio (250 HP) has 199 more horse power than 1950 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Renault Clio should accelerate faster than 1950 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Renault Clio weights approximately 680 kg more than 1950 Holden FX. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 1996 Renault Clio (407 Nm) has 271 more torque (in Nm) than 1950 Holden FX. (136 Nm). This means 1996 Renault Clio will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1950 Holden FX.
Compare all specifications:
| 1950 Holden FX | 1996 Renault Clio | |
| Make | Holden | Renault |
| Model | FX | Clio |
| Year Released | 1950 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Size | 2165 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 250 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 407 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 1650 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 3780 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1640 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2490 mm |
