1962 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Jaguar XK
To start off, 2004 Jaguar XK is newer by 42 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, 2004 Jaguar XK (390 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 193 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Jaguar XK should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 307 kg more than 2004 Jaguar XK.
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 41 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Jaguar XK. (541 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Jaguar XK.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Cadillac 62 | 2004 Jaguar XK | |
Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
Model | 62 | XK |
Year Released | 1962 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4194 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 390 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6100 RPM |
Torque | 582 Nm | 541 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 86 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 90 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2140 kg | 1833 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4770 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1290 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2590 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 75 L |