1959 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Volvo S40
To start off, 2003 Volvo S40 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 59 more horse power than 2003 Volvo S40. (138 HP @ 5100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1959 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Volvo S40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1959 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 687 kg more than 2003 Volvo S40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Compare all specifications:
| 1959 Cadillac 62 | 2003 Volvo S40 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
| Model | 62 | S40 |
| Year Released | 1959 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6382 cc | 2327 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 138 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5100 RPM |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2125 kg | 1438 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4470 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1780 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2670 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 62 L |
