1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2004 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 44 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, 2004 Chevrolet Malibu (200 HP) has 3 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Malibu should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 691 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Malibu.
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, 2004 Chevrolet Malibu, 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 | 2004 Chevrolet Malibu | |
Make | Cadillac | Chevrolet |
Model | 62 | Malibu |
Year Released | 1960 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 3491 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 200 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2195 kg | 1504 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4780 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1480 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2950 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 61 L |