1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2004 Ford Mustang 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 Ford Mustang (296 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 533 kg more than 2004 Ford Mustang.
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 | 2004 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | 62 | Mustang |
Year Released | 1960 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4606 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 | 6000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2195 kg | 1662 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4770 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1390 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2620 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 59 L |