1958 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2004 Ford Falcon is newer by 46 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, 2004 Ford Falcon (220 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 30 more horse power than 1958 Cadillac 62. (190 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1958 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1958 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 570 kg more than 2004 Ford Falcon.
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:
| 1958 Cadillac 62 | 2004 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1958 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5980 cc | 3984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 220 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 2085 kg | 1515 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5520 mm | 4910 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2800 mm |
