2004 Ford Mustang vs. 1961 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1961 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1961 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud would be higher. At 6,230 cc (8 cylinders), 1961 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1961 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud weights approximately 810 kg more than 2004 Ford Mustang.
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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Mustang | 1961 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud | |
| Make | Ford | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | Mustang | Silver Cloud |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1961 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3802 cc | 6230 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 191 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1298 kg | 2108 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 5490 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1910 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1630 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 3070 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 81 L |
