1983 Nissan Pulsar vs. 2005 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2005 Smart ForTwo is newer by 22 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Nissan Pulsar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Nissan Pulsar would be higher. At 1,486 cc (4 cylinders), 1983 Nissan Pulsar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Smart ForTwo (74 HP) has 4 more horse power than 1983 Nissan Pulsar. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Smart ForTwo should accelerate faster than 1983 Nissan Pulsar.
Because 2005 Smart ForTwo 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 2005 Smart ForTwo. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1983 Nissan Pulsar, 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, 1983 Nissan Pulsar (115 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 5 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Smart ForTwo. (110 Nm @ 2200 RPM). This means 1983 Nissan Pulsar will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Smart ForTwo.
Compare all specifications:
| 1983 Nissan Pulsar | 2005 Smart ForTwo | |
| Make | Nissan | Smart |
| Model | Pulsar | ForTwo |
| Year Released | 1983 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 1486 cc | 698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 74 HP |
| Torque | 115 Nm | 110 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 2200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 2510 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1520 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2420 mm | 1820 mm |
