1951 Cadillac 62 vs. 2005 Lincoln LS
To start off, 2005 Lincoln LS is newer by 54 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, 2005 Lincoln LS (232 HP) has 72 more horse power than 1951 Cadillac 62. (160 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Lincoln LS should accelerate faster than 1951 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1951 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 65 kg more than 2005 Lincoln LS.
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) has 125 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Lincoln LS. (298 Nm). This means 1951 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Lincoln LS.
Compare all specifications:
1951 Cadillac 62 | 2005 Lincoln LS | |
Make | Cadillac | Lincoln |
Model | 62 | LS |
Year Released | 1951 | 2005 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5422 cc | 2964 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 232 HP |
Torque | 423 Nm | 298 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 96.8 mm | 89 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 92.1 mm | 80 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 6.7:1 | 10.5:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1752 kg | 1687 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5480 mm | 4940 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1870 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1600 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 3020 mm |