2000 Caterham 7 vs. 1951 Holden FX
To start off, 2000 Caterham 7 is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Holden FX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Holden FX would be higher. At 2,166 cc (6 cylinders), 1951 Holden FX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Caterham 7 (170 HP @ 10750 RPM) has 119 more horse power than 1951 Holden FX. (51 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 1951 Holden FX. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Holden FX weights approximately 530 kg more than 2000 Caterham 7.
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, 1951 Holden FX (136 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Caterham 7. (125 Nm @ 8250 RPM). This means 1951 Holden FX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Caterham 7.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Caterham 7 | 1951 Holden FX | |
| Make | Caterham | Holden |
| Model | 7 | FX |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1951 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1137 cc | 2166 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 170 HP | 51 HP |
| Engine RPM | 10750 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 125 Nm | 136 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 8250 RPM | 2000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 440 kg | 970 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4380 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1710 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1010 mm | 1580 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2620 mm |
