1951 Cadillac 62 vs. 2000 Chevrolet Astro
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Astro is newer by 49 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 565 kg more than 2000 Chevrolet Astro.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Astro is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1951 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chevrolet Astro will offer significantly more control. 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) has 84 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chevrolet Astro. (339 Nm). This means 1951 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chevrolet Astro.
Compare all specifications:
| 1951 Cadillac 62 | 2000 Chevrolet Astro | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chevrolet |
| Model | 62 | Astro |
| Year Released | 1951 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5422 cc | 4300 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 160 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 423 Nm | 339 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 8 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1752 kg | 1187 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5480 mm | 4830 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1980 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1600 mm | 1940 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 2790 mm |
