2006 Ford E-250 vs. 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud
To start off, 2006 Ford E-250 is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud would be higher. At 6,229 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud weights approximately 876 kg more than 2006 Ford E-250.
Because 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud 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 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Ford E-250, 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:
2006 Ford E-250 | 1963 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud | |
Make | Ford | Rolls-Royce |
Model | E-250 | Silver Cloud |
Year Released | 2006 | 1963 |
Body Type | Van | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4605 cc | 6229 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 225 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1224 kg | 2100 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 5380 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1890 mm |
Vehicle Height | 2120 mm | 1630 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 3130 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.7 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 81 L |