1952 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Alfa Romeo 166
To start off, 2004 Alfa Romeo 166 is newer by 52 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1952 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1952 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,425 cc (8 cylinders), 1952 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1952 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 365 kg more than 2004 Alfa Romeo 166.
Because 1952 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 1952 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Alfa Romeo 166, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1952 Cadillac 62 | 2004 Alfa Romeo 166 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Alfa Romeo |
| Model | 62 | 166 |
| Year Released | 1952 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5425 cc | 1970 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 148 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1875 kg | 1510 kg |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1810 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 2710 mm |
