1959 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2003 Ford Mustang 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 Mustang (305 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 108 more horse power than 1959 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1959 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1959 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 549 kg more than 2003 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
1959 Cadillac 62 | 2003 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | 62 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1959 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6382 cc | 4601 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 305 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2125 kg | 1576 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1860 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2580 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 59 L |