1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Ford F-250
To start off, 2003 Ford F-250 is newer by 43 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, 2003 Ford F-250 (296 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford F-250 should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford F-250 weights approximately 210 kg more than 1960 Cadillac 62. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 | 2003 Ford F-250 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | F-250 |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 5408 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 3 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 296 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 2410 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 5760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1940 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 3490 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 144 L |
