1962 AC Aceca vs. 1968 Cadillac Brougham
To start off, 1968 Cadillac Brougham is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 AC Aceca would be higher. At 7,734 cc (8 cylinders), 1968 Cadillac Brougham is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1968 Cadillac Brougham (229 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 104 more horse power than 1962 AC Aceca. (125 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1968 Cadillac Brougham should accelerate faster than 1962 AC Aceca. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Cadillac Brougham weights approximately 1286 kg more than 1962 AC Aceca. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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:
1962 AC Aceca | 1968 Cadillac Brougham | |
Make | AC | Cadillac |
Model | Aceca | Brougham |
Year Released | 1962 | 1968 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1971 cc | 7734 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 125 HP | 229 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 894 kg | 2180 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4070 mm | 5790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1560 mm | 2040 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1360 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2290 mm | 3390 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 79 L |