1952 Riley RM A vs. 2000 Smart ForFour
To start off, 2000 Smart ForFour is newer by 48 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Riley RM A would be higher. At 1,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Smart ForFour is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Riley RM A weights approximately 260 kg more than 2000 Smart ForFour.
Because 1952 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 1952 Riley RM A. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Smart ForFour, 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:
| 1952 Riley RM A | 2000 Smart ForFour | |
| Make | Riley | Smart |
| Model | RM A | ForFour |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2000 |
| Engine Size | 1496 cc | 1499 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 108 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1235 kg | 975 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 3760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1460 mm |
