1963 Rover 2000 vs. 2008 Smart Roadster
To start off, 2008 Smart Roadster is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Rover 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Rover 2000 would be higher. At 1,978 cc (4 cylinders), 1963 Rover 2000 is equipped with a bigger engine.
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 Rover 2000 (150 Nm @ 2750 RPM) has 40 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Smart Roadster. (110 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1963 Rover 2000 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Smart Roadster. 2008 Smart Roadster has automatic transmission and 1963 Rover 2000 has manual transmission. 1963 Rover 2000 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2008 Smart Roadster will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1963 Rover 2000 | 2008 Smart Roadster | |
Make | Rover | Smart |
Model | 2000 | Roadster |
Year Released | 1963 | 2008 |
Engine Position | Front | Rear |
Engine Size | 1978 cc | 698 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 91 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 150 Nm | 110 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2750 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.0:1 | 9.0:1 |
Top Speed | 161 km/hour | 175 km/hour |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 3430 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1200 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2370 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 54 L | 35 L |