2005 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2005 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 25 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 6,750 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. 2005 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 265 kg more than 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow.
Because 2005 Land Rover Range Rover 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, 2005 Land Rover Range Rover 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 Land Rover Range Rover | 1980 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
Make | Land Rover | Rolls-Royce |
Model | Range Rover | Silver Shadow |
Year Released | 2005 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2926 cc | 6750 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 175 HP | 0 HP |
Engine Compression Ratio | 18.0:1 | 8.0:1 |
Top Speed | 174 km/hour | 185 km/hour |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2500 kg | 2235 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4960 mm | 5280 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1960 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1870 mm | 1520 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 3060 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 100 L | 107 L |