1962 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Tata E
To start off, 2003 Tata E is newer by 41 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 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1962 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 2003 Tata E. (148 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1962 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Tata E. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 681 kg more than 2003 Tata E. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac 62 (582 Nm) has 372 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Tata E. (210 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Tata E.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac 62 | 2003 Tata E | |
| Make | Cadillac | Tata |
| Model | 62 | E |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 2199 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 148 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 210 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 2055 kg | 1374 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4750 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2810 mm |
