1952 Holden FX vs. 2003 MCC Smart
To start off, 2003 MCC Smart is newer by 51 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 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1952 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 MCC Smart (81 HP) has 30 more horse power than 1952 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 MCC Smart should accelerate faster than 1952 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Holden FX weights approximately 150 kg more than 2003 MCC Smart.
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, 1952 Holden FX (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Smart. (112 Nm @ 2250 RPM). This means 1952 Holden FX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Holden FX | 2003 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Holden | MCC |
| Model | FX | Smart |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 2166 cc | 698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 81 HP |
| Torque | 136 Nm | 112 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 820 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 3440 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1200 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2370 mm |
