1952 Riley RM A vs. 2010 Mazda 5
To start off, 2010 Mazda 5 is newer by 58 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 2,300 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Mazda 5 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Mazda 5 weights approximately 343 kg more than 1952 Riley RM A.
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, 2010 Mazda 5, 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. 2010 Mazda 5 has automatic transmission and 1952 Riley RM A has manual transmission. 1952 Riley RM A will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2010 Mazda 5 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Riley RM A | 2010 Mazda 5 | |
| Make | Riley | Mazda |
| Model | RM A | 5 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2010 |
| Engine Size | 1496 cc | 2300 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 153 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 1235 kg | 1578 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4610 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1753 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1631 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2751 mm |
