1959 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Ford Puma
To start off, 2003 Ford Puma 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, 1959 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 98 more horse power than 2003 Ford Puma. (99 HP @ 6150 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1959 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Ford Puma. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1959 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1087 kg more than 2003 Ford Puma. 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 Puma has manual transmission. 2003 Ford Puma 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 Puma | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | 62 | Puma |
Year Released | 1959 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6382 cc | 1796 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 99 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6150 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2125 kg | 1038 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 3990 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1680 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2450 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 45 L |