1960 Isuzu Minx vs. 2004 MCC Smart
To start off, 2004 MCC Smart is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Isuzu Minx. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Isuzu Minx would be higher. At 1,491 cc (4 cylinders), 1960 Isuzu Minx is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 MCC Smart (81 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 19 more horse power than 1960 Isuzu Minx. (62 HP @ 5000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 MCC Smart should accelerate faster than 1960 Isuzu Minx. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Isuzu Minx weights approximately 210 kg more than 2004 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, 1960 Isuzu Minx (113 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 1 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 MCC Smart. (112 Nm @ 2250 RPM). This means 1960 Isuzu Minx will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
1960 Isuzu Minx | 2004 MCC Smart | |
Make | Isuzu | MCC |
Model | Minx | Smart |
Year Released | 1960 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 1491 cc | 698 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 62 HP | 81 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 113 Nm | 112 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 2250 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 820 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4120 mm | 3440 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1550 mm | 1630 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1200 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2440 mm | 2370 mm |