1996 Toyota Carina vs. 2010 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2010 Smart ForTwo is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Toyota Carina. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Toyota Carina would be higher. At 1,997 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Toyota Carina is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Toyota Carina (82 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 12 more horse power than 2010 Smart ForTwo. (70 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Toyota Carina should accelerate faster than 2010 Smart ForTwo.
Because 2010 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 2010 Smart ForTwo. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Toyota Carina, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Toyota Carina | 2010 Smart ForTwo | |
| Make | Toyota | Smart |
| Model | Carina | ForTwo |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 1997 cc | 1000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 82 HP | 70 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 2695 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1560 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1542 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 5 L/100km | 5.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 7 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 33 L |
