1950 Cadillac 62 vs. 1999 Ford Ka
To start off, 1999 Ford Ka is newer by 49 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1950 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1950 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,425 cc (8 cylinders), 1950 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1950 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 872 kg more than 1999 Ford Ka.
Because 1950 Cadillac 62 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 1950 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Ford Ka, 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:
| 1950 Cadillac 62 | 1999 Ford Ka | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Ka |
| Year Released | 1950 | 1999 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5425 cc | 1297 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 59 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1752 kg | 880 kg |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1640 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 2460 mm |
