1986 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2003 MCC Smart
To start off, 2003 MCC Smart is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 2,474 cc (6 cylinders), 1986 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro (89 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 2003 MCC Smart. (81 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 2003 MCC Smart.
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, 1986 Chevrolet Camaro (179 Nm @ 2800 RPM) has 67 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC Smart. (112 Nm @ 2250 RPM). This means 1986 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC Smart.
Compare all specifications:
| 1986 Chevrolet Camaro | 2003 MCC Smart | |
| Make | Chevrolet | MCC |
| Model | Camaro | Smart |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 2474 cc | 698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 89 HP | 81 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 179 Nm | 112 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2800 RPM | 2250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 3440 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1630 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2370 mm |
