2009 Jaguar XF vs. 1972 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
To start off, 2009 Jaguar XF is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1972 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1972 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow would be higher. At 6,750 cc (8 cylinders), 1972 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1972 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow weights approximately 439 kg more than 2009 Jaguar XF.
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 Jaguar XF | 1972 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow | |
| Make | Jaguar | Rolls-Royce |
| Model | XF | Silver Shadow |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1972 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2967 cc | 6750 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 235 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Top Speed | 237 km/hour | 190 km/hour |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1679 kg | 2118 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4970 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1470 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1520 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2920 mm | 3060 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.8 L/100km | 15.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 107 L |
