1951 Riley RM A vs. 2010 Mazda 3
To start off, 2010 Mazda 3 is newer by 59 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Riley RM A would be higher. At 1,560 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda 3 is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1951 Riley RM A 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 1951 Riley RM A. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda 3, 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:
1951 Riley RM A | 2010 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Riley | Mazda |
Model | RM A | 3 |
Year Released | 1951 | 2010 |
Engine Size | 1495 cc | 1560 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 113 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 5-speed manual |
Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2639 mm |