1953 Holden FX vs. 2006 Volkswagen Polo
To start off, 2006 Volkswagen Polo is newer by 53 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1953 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1953 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1953 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Volkswagen Polo (83 HP) has 32 more horse power than 1953 Holden FX. (51 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Volkswagen Polo should accelerate faster than 1953 Holden FX.
Because 1953 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 1953 Holden FX. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Volkswagen Polo, 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, 1953 Holden FX (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Volkswagen Polo. (122 Nm @ 2750 RPM). This means 1953 Holden FX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Volkswagen Polo.
Compare all specifications:
1953 Holden FX | 2006 Volkswagen Polo | |
Make | Holden | Volkswagen |
Model | FX | Polo |
Year Released | 1953 | 2006 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2166 cc | 1388 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 51 HP | 83 HP |
Torque | 136 Nm | 122 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2750 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 4200 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1470 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2470 mm |