2009 Ford Mustang vs. 1951 Riley RM A
To start off, 2009 Ford Mustang is newer by 58 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Riley RM A. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Riley RM A would be higher. At 4,009 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Riley RM A weights approximately 269 kg more than 2009 Ford Mustang.
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:
2009 Ford Mustang | 1951 Riley RM A | |
Make | Ford | Riley |
Model | Mustang | RM A |
Year Released | 2009 | 1951 |
Engine Size | 4009 cc | 1495 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 966 kg | 1235 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4780 mm | 4560 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1550 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2870 mm |