1963 Holden EJ vs. 2000 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2000 Smart ForTwo is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,262 cc (6 cylinders), 1963 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Smart ForTwo (74 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 10 more horse power than 1963 Holden EJ. (64 HP @ 4200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Smart ForTwo should accelerate faster than 1963 Holden EJ. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Holden EJ weights approximately 314 kg more than 2000 Smart ForTwo.
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, 1963 Holden EJ (163 Nm @ 1400 RPM) has 53 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Smart ForTwo. (110 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 1963 Holden EJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Smart ForTwo.
Compare all specifications:
1963 Holden EJ | 2000 Smart ForTwo | |
Make | Holden | Smart |
Model | EJ | ForTwo |
Year Released | 1963 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 698 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 64 HP | 74 HP |
Engine RPM | 4200 RPM | 5250 RPM |
Torque | 163 Nm | 110 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1400 RPM | 2200 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1134 kg | 820 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 2510 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1540 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1560 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 1820 mm |