1961 Cadillac 62 vs. 2000 Ford Taurus
To start off, 2000 Ford Taurus is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1961 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1961 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,389 cc (8 cylinders), 1961 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Taurus (201 HP) has 4 more horse power than 1961 Cadillac 62. (197 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Taurus should accelerate faster than 1961 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1961 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 634 kg more than 2000 Ford Taurus.
Because 1961 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 1961 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Ford Taurus, 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:
1961 Cadillac 62 | 2000 Ford Taurus | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | 62 | Taurus |
Year Released | 1961 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6389 cc | 2961 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 201 HP |
Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 89 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 79.5 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2140 kg | 1506 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 5030 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 68 L |