2006 Ford Ranger vs. 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2006 Ford Ranger is newer by 38 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 385 kg more than 2006 Ford Ranger.
Because 2006 Ford Ranger 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, 2006 Ford Ranger 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:
| 2006 Ford Ranger | 1968 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
| Make | Ford | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | Ranger | Silver Shadow |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1968 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2499 cc | 6229 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1715 kg | 2100 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1530 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 3040 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 109 L |
