1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2002 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2002 Toyota Tundra is newer by 42 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, 2002 Toyota Tundra (245 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 48 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Toyota Tundra should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1277 kg more than 2002 Toyota Tundra.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 | 2002 Toyota Tundra | |
| Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
| Model | 62 | Tundra |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2002 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4698 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 245 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 923 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 5530 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1920 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1800 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 3270 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 70 L |
