1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML
To start off, 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML 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 Mercedes-Benz ML (232 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 35 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 15 kg more than 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML.
Because 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1960 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML 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.
Compare all specifications:
1960 Cadillac 62 | 2003 Mercedes-Benz ML | |
Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
Model | 62 | ML |
Year Released | 1960 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 3724 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 3 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 232 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5750 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 2185 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4640 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1830 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2720 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 83 L |