1951 Cadillac 62 vs. 1963 Volvo 120
To start off, 1963 Volvo 120 is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1951 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1951 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,422 cc (8 cylinders), 1951 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1951 Cadillac 62 (160 HP) has 93 more horse power than 1963 Volvo 120. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1951 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1963 Volvo 120. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 742 kg more than 1963 Volvo 120. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1951 Cadillac 62 (423 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 279 more torque (in Nm) than 1963 Volvo 120. (144 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 1951 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1963 Volvo 120.
Compare all specifications:
1951 Cadillac 62 | 1963 Volvo 120 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
Model | 62 | 120 |
Year Released | 1951 | 1963 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5422 cc | 1778 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 67 HP |
Torque | 423 Nm | 144 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1800 RPM | 2300 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1752 kg | 1010 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5480 mm | 4460 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1600 mm | 1510 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 2610 mm |