1953 Riley RM A vs. 2010 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2010 Ford Ecosport is newer by 57 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.
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, 2010 Ford Ecosport, 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 | 2010 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Riley | Ford |
Model | RM A | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1953 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1496 cc | 1400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 67 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4560 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1620 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1550 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2490 mm |