1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Lincoln LS
To start off, 2004 Lincoln LS 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 Lincoln LS (229 HP @ 6750 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Lincoln LS should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 515 kg more than 2004 Lincoln LS.
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 Lincoln LS | |
| Make | Cadillac | Lincoln |
| Model | 62 | LS |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 2967 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 229 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6750 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 1685 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4940 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1870 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2780 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 68 L |
