1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow vs. 2003 Seat Altea
To start off, 2003 Seat Altea is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,230 cc (8 cylinders), 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 786 kg more than 2003 Seat Altea.
Because 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow 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 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Seat Altea, 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:
1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | 2003 Seat Altea | |
Make | Rolls-Royce | Seat |
Model | Silver Shadow | Altea |
Year Released | 1967 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6230 cc | 1593 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 100 HP |
Top Speed | 193 km/hour | 181 km/hour |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2106 kg | 1320 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5180 mm | 4290 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1770 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1530 mm | 1570 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2520 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.2 L/100km | 7.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 109 L | 55 L |