1962 Cadillac 62 vs. 2000 Volvo V40
To start off, 2000 Volvo V40 is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 197 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 745 kg more than 2000 Volvo V40.
Because 1962 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 1962 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Volvo V40, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac 62 (582 Nm) has 282 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Volvo V40. (300 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Volvo V40.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Cadillac 62 | 2000 Volvo V40 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
Model | 62 | V40 |
Year Released | 1962 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 1948 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 197 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 582 Nm | 300 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2140 kg | 1395 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4520 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 60 L |