1959 Holden FE vs. 2000 Smart Roadster
To start off, 2000 Smart Roadster is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1959 Holden FE. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1959 Holden FE would be higher. At 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1959 Holden FE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Smart Roadster (101 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 1959 Holden FE. (60 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Smart Roadster should accelerate faster than 1959 Holden FE.
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, 1959 Holden FE (150 Nm @ 1200 RPM) has 20 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Smart Roadster. (130 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 1959 Holden FE will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Smart Roadster.
Compare all specifications:
1959 Holden FE | 2000 Smart Roadster | |
Make | Holden | Smart |
Model | FE | Roadster |
Year Released | 1959 | 2000 |
Body Type | Sedan | Roadster |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 2166 cc | 698 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 60 HP | 101 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 150 Nm | 130 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1200 RPM | 2500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 3430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1560 mm | 1200 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2370 mm |