1983 Ford Tempo vs. 1954 Riley RM A
To start off, 1983 Ford Tempo is newer by 29 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1954 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1954 Riley RM A would be higher. At 1,998 cc (4 cylinders), 1983 Ford Tempo is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1954 Riley RM A weights approximately 125 kg more than 1983 Ford Tempo.
Because 1954 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 1954 Riley RM A. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1983 Ford Tempo, 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:
| 1983 Ford Tempo | 1954 Riley RM A | |
| Make | Ford | Riley |
| Model | Tempo | RM A |
| Year Released | 1983 | 1954 |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 1496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 51 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1110 kg | 1235 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 4560 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1550 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2540 mm | 2870 mm |
