1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Mercedes-Benz E
To start off, 2003 Mercedes-Benz E 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, 1960 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 36 more horse power than 2003 Mercedes-Benz E. (161 HP @ 5700 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1960 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Mercedes-Benz E. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 480 kg more than 2003 Mercedes-Benz E. 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 Mercedes-Benz E | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
| Model | 62 | E |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 2597 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 161 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5700 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 1720 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4860 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1500 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 70 L |
