1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom vs. 2003 Honda Accord
To start off, 2003 Honda Accord is newer by 51 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom would be higher.
Because 1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom 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 Rolls-Royce Phantom. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Honda Accord, 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. 2003 Honda Accord has automatic transmission and 1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom has manual transmission. 1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2003 Honda Accord will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1952 Rolls-Royce Phantom | 2003 Honda Accord | |
Make | Rolls-Royce | Honda |
Model | Phantom | Accord |
Year Released | 1952 | 2003 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 187 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1960 mm | 1770 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3690 mm | 2680 mm |