2005 Chevrolet Cobalt vs. 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt 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. 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 641 kg more than 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt.
Because 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow 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 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, 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:
| 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt | 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | Cobalt | Silver Shadow |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1968 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2196 cc | 6229 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 145 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1459 kg | 2100 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4590 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1530 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2690 mm | 3040 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.9 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 49 L | 109 L |
