2001 Mercury Sable vs. 1955 Riley RM A
To start off, 2001 Mercury Sable is newer by 46 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 2,982 cc (6 cylinders), 2001 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2001 Mercury Sable weights approximately 329 kg more than 1955 Riley RM A.
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, 2001 Mercury Sable, 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. 2001 Mercury Sable has automatic transmission and 1955 Riley RM A has manual transmission. 1955 Riley RM A will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2001 Mercury Sable will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2001 Mercury Sable | 1955 Riley RM A | |
| Make | Mercury | Riley |
| Model | Sable | RM A |
| Year Released | 2001 | 1955 |
| Engine Size | 2982 cc | 1496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 152 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 1565 kg | 1236 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4560 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1550 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2870 mm |
