1952 Austin A 40 vs. 1960 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1960 Cadillac 62 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Austin A 40. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Austin A 40 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1960 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1960 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 159 more horse power than 1952 Austin A 40. (38 HP @ 4300 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1960 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1952 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1228 kg more than 1952 Austin A 40. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Austin A 40 | 1960 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 40 | 62 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1200 cc | 6390 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 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 972 kg | 2200 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 5730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1620 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2360 mm | 3310 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 48 L | 79 L |
