1955 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2003 Ford Ranger is newer by 48 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1955 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1955 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,424 cc (8 cylinders), 1955 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1955 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 280 kg more than 2003 Ford Ranger.
Because 2003 Ford Ranger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1955 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Ford Ranger 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1955 Cadillac 62 | 2003 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Ranger |
| Year Released | 1955 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5424 cc | 2300 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 267 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2000 kg | 1720 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5510 mm | 5090 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3290 mm | 3010 mm |
