1959 Cadillac 62 vs. 2009 SsangYong Rexton
To start off, 2009 SsangYong Rexton is newer by 50 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 6,381 cc (8 cylinders), 1959 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1959 Cadillac 62 (325 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 207 more horse power than 2009 SsangYong Rexton. (118 HP @ 4100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1959 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2009 SsangYong Rexton. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1959 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 367 kg more than 2009 SsangYong Rexton. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2009 SsangYong Rexton is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1959 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 SsangYong Rexton will offer significantly more control. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1959 Cadillac 62 (583 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 327 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 SsangYong Rexton. (256 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 1959 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 SsangYong Rexton.
Compare all specifications:
1959 Cadillac 62 | 2009 SsangYong Rexton | |
Make | Cadillac | SsangYong |
Model | 62 | Rexton |
Year Released | 1959 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6381 cc | 2874 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 325 HP | 118 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4100 RPM |
Torque | 583 Nm | 256 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2400 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 89 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 92.4 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 22.0:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2218 kg | 1851 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5720 mm | 4730 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1770 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2830 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 80 L |