2006 Mazda 3 vs. 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2006 Mazda 3 is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,230 cc (8 cylinders), 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 796 kg more than 2006 Mazda 3.
Because 1967 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 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mazda 3, 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 Mazda 3 | 1967 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
Make | Mazda | Rolls-Royce |
Model | 3 | Silver Shadow |
Year Released | 2006 | 1967 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1999 cc | 6230 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
Top Speed | 200 km/hour | 193 km/hour |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1310 kg | 2106 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 5180 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1530 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 3040 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.2 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 55 L | 109 L |