1996 Holden XU 6 vs. 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe
To start off, 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Holden XU 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Holden XU 6 would be higher.
Because 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe 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 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Holden XU 6, 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, 1996 Holden XU 6 (515 Nm) has 435 more torque (in Nm) than 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe. (80 Nm). This means 1996 Holden XU 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Holden XU 6 | 1998 MCC Smart & Pulse City Coupe | |
| Make | Holden | MCC |
| Model | XU 6 | Smart & Pulse City Coupe |
| Year Released | 1996 | 1998 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 53 HP |
| Torque | 515 Nm | 80 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
