Baron 1898 vs Dragon Khan
card comparison
| Stat | Baron 1898 | Dragon Khan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 98 ft | 148 ft | |
| Speed | 56 mph | 65 mph | |
| Inversions | 2 | 8 | |
| Throughputest. | 1000 rph | 1200 rph | |
| Build Costest. | 20 $m | 8 $m | |
| Vintage | 2015 | 1995 |
Vintage is the reversed stat — the older ride wins. Every number here is the same one printed on the card; see /methodology for how Build Cost and Throughput are sourced.
The verdict
Dragon Khan takes it 5–1, and the 1 Baron 1898 does win is the whole of its case.
Baron 1898 is a steel Dive Coaster coaster at Efteling, NL, built by Bolliger & Mabillard. Dragon Khan is a steel Sitting Looping Coaster coaster at PortAventura Park, ES, built by Bolliger & Mabillard.
They come from the same drawing office: Bolliger & Mabillard. That makes the gaps below a question of brief and budget rather than engineering house style.
Both are steel-track, so nothing here is the usual steel-versus-wood argument in disguise.
Stat by stat
- Height goes to Dragon Khan at 148 ft against 98 ft — a long way clear.
- Speed goes to Dragon Khan at 65 mph against 56 mph — well clear.
- Dragon Khan takes Inversions 8 to 2.
- Throughput goes to Dragon Khan at 1,200 rph against 1,000 rph — well clear.
- Build Cost goes to Baron 1898 at 20 $m against 8 $m — more than double.
- 20 years separate them, and because Vintage rewards age it is Dragon Khan (1995) that banks the point, not Baron 1898 (2015).