1964 Holden EJ vs. 2003 MCC Smart
To start off, 2003 MCC Smart is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Holden EJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Holden EJ would be higher. At 2,260 cc (6 cylinders), 1964 Holden EJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 MCC Smart (73 HP) has 9 more horse power than 1964 Holden EJ. (64 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 MCC Smart should accelerate faster than 1964 Holden EJ. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Holden EJ weights approximately 160 kg more than 2003 MCC Smart.
Because 1964 Holden EJ 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 1964 Holden EJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 MCC Smart, 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, 1964 Holden EJ (163 Nm) has 63 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Smart. (100 Nm). This means 1964 Holden EJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Holden EJ | 2003 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Holden | MCC |
| Model | EJ | Smart |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2260 cc | 1124 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 64 HP | 73 HP |
| Torque | 163 Nm | 100 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1130 kg | 970 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 3760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2510 mm |
