1983 Mazda Cosmo vs. 1952 Riley RM A
To start off, 1983 Mazda Cosmo is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Riley RM A would be higher. At 1,769 cc (4 cylinders), 1983 Mazda Cosmo is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Riley RM A weights approximately 145 kg more than 1983 Mazda Cosmo.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 Mazda Cosmo | 1952 Riley RM A | |
| Make | Mazda | Riley |
| Model | Cosmo | RM A |
| Year Released | 1983 | 1952 |
| Engine Size | 1769 cc | 1496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 93 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1090 kg | 1235 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 4560 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1550 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2870 mm |
