1999 Ford Falcon vs. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 1999 Ford Falcon is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,750 cc (8 cylinders), 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 730 kg more than 1999 Ford Falcon.
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. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow has automatic transmission and 1999 Ford Falcon has manual transmission. 1999 Ford Falcon will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1999 Ford Falcon | 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
Make | Ford | Rolls-Royce |
Model | Falcon | Silver Shadow |
Year Released | 1999 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3984 cc | 6750 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 220 HP | 0 HP |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.6:1 | 8.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1505 kg | 2235 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 5280 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 3060 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.1 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 107 L |