1966 Holden EH vs. 1997 MCC Smart
To start off, 1997 MCC Smart is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Holden EH. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Holden EH would be higher. At 2,930 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Holden EH is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Holden EH (100 HP) has 47 more horse power than 1997 MCC Smart. (53 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Holden EH should accelerate faster than 1997 MCC Smart. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Holden EH weights approximately 535 kg more than 1997 MCC Smart. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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. 1966 Holden EH has automatic transmission and 1997 MCC Smart has manual transmission. 1997 MCC Smart will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1966 Holden EH will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Holden EH | 1997 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Holden | MCC |
| Model | EH | Smart |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1997 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 2930 cc | 599 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 53 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1185 kg | 650 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 2510 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1460 mm |
