2004 Audi TT vs. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2004 Audi TT is newer by 24 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 6,749 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 682 kg more than 2004 Audi TT.
Because 2004 Audi TT is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Audi TT will offer significantly more control. 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 2004 Audi TT has manual transmission. 2004 Audi TT 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:
2004 Audi TT | 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
Make | Audi | Rolls-Royce |
Model | TT | Silver Shadow |
Year Released | 2004 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3196 cc | 6749 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 250 HP | 0 HP |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1524 kg | 2206 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4050 mm | 5280 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 3040 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.8 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 107 L |