1958 Cadillac 62 vs. 1996 Volvo 850
To start off, 1996 Volvo 850 is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1958 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1958 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,980 cc (8 cylinders), 1958 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1958 Cadillac 62 (190 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 65 more horse power than 1996 Volvo 850. (125 HP @ 6100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1958 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1996 Volvo 850. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1958 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 750 kg more than 1996 Volvo 850. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1958 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 1958 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Volvo 850, 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:
| 1958 Cadillac 62 | 1996 Volvo 850 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
| Model | 62 | 850 |
| Year Released | 1958 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5980 cc | 1984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 125 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6100 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 2085 kg | 1335 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5520 mm | 4670 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2670 mm |
