1962 Cadillac DeVille vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac DeVille. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac DeVille would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac DeVille is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V (400 HP) has 192 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac DeVille. (208 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac DeVille. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac DeVille weights approximately 397 kg more than 2003 Cadillac CTS-V.
Because 2003 Cadillac CTS-V 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 2003 Cadillac CTS-V. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1962 Cadillac DeVille, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Cadillac DeVille | 2003 Cadillac CTS-V | |
Make | Cadillac | Cadillac |
Model | DeVille | CTS-V |
Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 5666 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 400 HP |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2142 kg | 1745 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5720 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2050 mm | 1800 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 66 L |