1950 Austin A 40 vs. 1958 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1958 Cadillac 62 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1950 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1950 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 5,980 cc (8 cylinders), 1958 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1958 Cadillac 62 (190 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 152 more horse power than 1950 Austin A 40. (38 HP @ 4300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1958 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1950 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1958 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1115 kg more than 1950 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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:
1950 Austin A 40 | 1958 Cadillac 62 | |
Make | Austin | Cadillac |
Model | A 40 | 62 |
Year Released | 1950 | 1958 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1200 cc | 5980 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 38 HP | 190 HP |
Engine RPM | 4300 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 2085 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 5520 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 2040 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1620 mm | 1590 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 3300 mm |