1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 52 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, 1960 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 93 more horse power than 2012 Mazda 3. (104 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1960 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2012 Mazda 3.
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, 2012 Mazda 3, 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 | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | 62 | 3 |
Year Released | 1960 | 2012 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 1560 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 104 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2639 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 55 L |