1952 Holden FX vs. 1986 Jaguar XJ6
To start off, 1986 Jaguar XJ6 is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Holden FX would be higher. At 3,590 cc (6 cylinders), 1986 Jaguar XJ6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Jaguar XJ6 (221 HP) has 170 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1986 Jaguar XJ6 should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1986 Jaguar XJ6 weights approximately 800 kg more than 1952 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, 1986 Jaguar XJ6 (336 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 200 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Holden FX. (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1986 Jaguar XJ6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Holden FX.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Holden FX | 1986 Jaguar XJ6 | |
| Make | Holden | Jaguar |
| Model | FX | XJ6 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1986 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2166 cc | 3590 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 221 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 336 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 1770 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 4940 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 2010 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2880 mm |
