1962 Cadillac 62 vs. 2006 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2006 Ford Falcon is newer by 44 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, 2006 Ford Falcon (200 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 474 kg more than 2006 Ford Falcon.
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 225 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Ford Falcon. (357 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Ford Falcon.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac 62 | 2006 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2006 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 3984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 200 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4900 RPM |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 357 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 92.4 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 99.3 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2055 kg | 1581 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2930 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 70 L |
