2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward vs. 2013 Smart Fortwo
To start off, 2013 Smart Fortwo is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward would be higher. At 5,379 cc (12 cylinders), 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward (322 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 251 more horse power than 2013 Smart Fortwo. (71 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward should accelerate faster than 2013 Smart Fortwo.
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, 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward (499 Nm @ 3900 RPM) has 374 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Smart Fortwo. (125 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Smart Fortwo.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Rolls-Royce Park Ward | 2013 Smart Fortwo | |
| Make | Rolls-Royce | Smart |
| Model | Park Ward | Fortwo |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 5379 cc | 1000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 12 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 322 HP | 71 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Torque | 499 Nm | 125 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3900 RPM | 2500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 5-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 2 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
