1960 Cadillac 62 vs. 2013 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2013 Toyota Tundra is newer by 53 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, 2013 Toyota Tundra (376 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 179 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Toyota Tundra should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Toyota Tundra weights approximately 104 kg more than 1960 Cadillac 62. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2013 Toyota Tundra is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1960 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Toyota Tundra will offer significantly more control. 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 | 2013 Toyota Tundra | |
| Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
| Model | 62 | Tundra |
| Year Released | 1960 | 2013 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 5700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 376 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 2304 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5730 mm | 5329 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 2030 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1935 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 3220 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 100 L |
