1962 Cadillac 62 vs. 2010 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2010 Jaguar XF is newer by 48 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, 2010 Jaguar XF (271 HP) has 74 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac 62. (197 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac 62.
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, 2010 Jaguar XF (600 Nm) has 18 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Cadillac 62. (582 Nm). This means 2010 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Cadillac 62.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac 62 | 2010 Jaguar XF | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
| Model | 62 | XF |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 271 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 600 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4961 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1461 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2908 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 70 L |
