1960 Holden FC vs. 2005 Volkswagen Polo
To start off, 2005 Volkswagen Polo is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Holden FC. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Holden FC would be higher. At 2,165 cc (6 cylinders), 1960 Holden FC is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Volkswagen Polo (100 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 1960 Holden FC. (62 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Volkswagen Polo should accelerate faster than 1960 Holden FC.
Because 1960 Holden FC 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 1960 Holden FC. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 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, 1960 Holden FC (150 Nm @ 1400 RPM) has 10 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Volkswagen Polo. (140 Nm @ 3250 RPM). This means 1960 Holden FC will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Volkswagen Polo.
Compare all specifications:
| 1960 Holden FC | 2005 Volkswagen Polo | |
| Make | Holden | Volkswagen |
| Model | FC | Polo |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2005 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2165 cc | 1595 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 62 HP | 100 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 150 Nm | 140 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 3250 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2520 mm |
