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 (106 HP) has 55 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. 2003 MCC Smart weights approximately 5 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.

Because 1952 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 1952 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, 2003 MCC Smart (145 Nm) has 9 more torque (in Nm) than 1952 Holden FX. (136 Nm). This means 2003 MCC Smart will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1952 Holden FX.

Compare all specifications: