2000 Mazda 626 vs. 1955 Riley RM A
To start off, 2000 Mazda 626 is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1955 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1955 Riley RM A would be higher. At 1,769 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Mazda 626 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1955 Riley RM A weights approximately 91 kg more than 2000 Mazda 626.
Because 1955 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 1955 Riley RM A. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Mazda 626, 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:
| 2000 Mazda 626 | 1955 Riley RM A | |
| Make | Mazda | Riley |
| Model | 626 | RM A |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1955 |
| Engine Size | 1769 cc | 1496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 100 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1145 kg | 1236 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4560 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1550 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2870 mm |
