1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2010 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2010 Ford Falcon is newer by 50 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, 2010 Ford Falcon (261 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 64 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 496 kg more than 2010 Ford Falcon.
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 | 2010 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 3983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6000 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 | 1704 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4955 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1868 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1453 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2838 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 68 L |
