2005 BMW X5 vs. 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2005 BMW X5 is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,229 cc (8 cylinders), 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 BMW X5 weights approximately 70 kg more than 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow.
Because 2005 BMW X5 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 BMW X5 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 BMW X5 | 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
| Make | BMW | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | X5 | Silver Shadow |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1968 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2926 cc | 6229 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 215 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2170 kg | 2100 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1720 mm | 1530 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 3040 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.6 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 93 L | 109 L |
