1951 Austin A 40 vs. 1959 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1959 Cadillac 62 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 6,382 cc (8 cylinders), 1959 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1959 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 159 more horse power than 1951 Austin A 40. (38 HP @ 4300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1959 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1951 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1959 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1155 kg more than 1951 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Compare all specifications:
| 1951 Austin A 40 | 1959 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 40 | 62 |
| Year Released | 1951 | 1959 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 6382 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 38 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4300 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 970 kg | 2125 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 5730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 2040 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 3310 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 48 L | 79 L |
