1959 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Ford F-250
To start off, 2003 Ford F-250 is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1959 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1959 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,382 cc (8 cylinders), 1959 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford F-250 (296 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 1959 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford F-250 should accelerate faster than 1959 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford F-250 weights approximately 285 kg more than 1959 Cadillac 62. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
1959 Cadillac 62 has automatic transmission and 2003 Ford F-250 has manual transmission. 2003 Ford F-250 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1959 Cadillac 62 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1959 Cadillac 62 | 2003 Ford F-250 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | F-250 |
| Year Released | 1959 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6382 cc | 5408 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 3 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 296 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2125 kg | 2410 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 5760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 2040 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 3490 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 144 L |
