1984 Ford Tempo vs. 1952 Riley RM A
To start off, 1984 Ford Tempo is newer by 32 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 2,306 cc (4 cylinders), 1984 Ford Tempo is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Riley RM A weights approximately 130 kg more than 1984 Ford Tempo.
Because 1952 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 1952 Riley RM A. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1984 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:
| 1984 Ford Tempo | 1952 Riley RM A | |
| Make | Ford | Riley |
| Model | Tempo | RM A |
| Year Released | 1984 | 1952 |
| Engine Size | 2306 cc | 1496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 89 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1105 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 |
