2006 Ford E-350 vs. 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud
To start off, 2006 Ford E-350 is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud would be higher. At 6,230 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Ford E-350 weights approximately 388 kg more than 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud.
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:
| 2006 Ford E-350 | 1965 Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud | |
| Make | Ford | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | E-350 | Silver Cloud |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1965 |
| Body Type | Van | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5408 cc | 6230 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.5:1 | 8.9:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2488 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 | 15.7 L/100km | 15.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 81 L |
