1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 1998 Ford Cougar
To start off, 1998 Ford Cougar is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1960 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1960 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 69 more horse power than 1998 Ford Cougar. (128 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1960 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1998 Ford Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 904 kg more than 1998 Ford Cougar. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1960 Cadillac 62 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1960 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1998 Ford Cougar, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1960 Cadillac 62 | 1998 Ford Cougar | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Cougar |
| Year Released | 1960 | 1998 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 128 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2195 kg | 1291 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4710 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1330 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2800 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 60 L |
