1953 Riley RM A vs. 1968 Triumph 1300
To start off, 1968 Triumph 1300 is newer by 15 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1953 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1953 Riley RM A would be higher. At 1,496 cc (4 cylinders), 1953 Riley RM A is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1953 Riley RM A weights approximately 320 kg more than 1968 Triumph 1300.
Because 1953 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 1953 Riley RM A. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1968 Triumph 1300, 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:
1953 Riley RM A | 1968 Triumph 1300 | |
Make | Riley | Triumph |
Model | RM A | 1300 |
Year Released | 1953 | 1968 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1496 cc | 1295 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 60 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1235 kg | 915 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 3940 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1570 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1380 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2460 mm |