1951 Cadillac 62 vs. 2008 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 57 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, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu (170 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 10 more horse power than 1951 Cadillac 62. (160 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu should accelerate faster than 1951 Cadillac 62.
Because 1951 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 1951 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1951 Cadillac 62 (423 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 206 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Chevrolet Malibu. (217 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1951 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Chevrolet Malibu.
Compare all specifications:
| 1951 Cadillac 62 | 2008 Chevrolet Malibu | |
| Make | Cadillac | Chevrolet |
| Model | 62 | Malibu |
| Year Released | 1951 | 2008 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5422 cc | 2401 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 160 HP | 170 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 423 Nm | 217 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 1800 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 5480 mm | 4880 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1600 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 2860 mm |
