1950 Holden FX vs. 2003 MCC Smart
To start off, 2003 MCC Smart is newer by 53 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 2,165 cc (6 cylinders), 1950 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 MCC Smart (73 HP) has 22 more horse power than 1950 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 MCC Smart should accelerate faster than 1950 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1950 Holden FX weights approximately 5 kg more than 2003 MCC Smart.
Because 1950 Holden FX 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 1950 Holden FX. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1950 Holden FX (136 Nm) has 36 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Smart. (100 Nm). This means 1950 Holden FX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
| 1950 Holden FX | 2003 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Holden | MCC |
| Model | FX | Smart |
| Year Released | 1950 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2165 cc | 1124 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 73 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 100 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 965 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 3760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2510 mm |
