1955 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2004 Ford Ecosport is newer by 49 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. In terms of performance, 1955 Cadillac 62 (267 HP) has 124 more horse power than 2004 Ford Ecosport. (143 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1955 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Ecosport.
Because 1955 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 1955 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Ford Ecosport, 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. 1955 Cadillac 62 has automatic transmission and 2004 Ford Ecosport has manual transmission. 2004 Ford Ecosport will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1955 Cadillac 62 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1955 Cadillac 62 | 2004 Ford Ecosport | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | 62 | Ecosport |
Year Released | 1955 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5424 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 267 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5510 mm | 4228 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1679 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3290 mm | 2490 mm |