1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 1999 Ford Falcon
To start off, 1999 Ford Falcon is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 605 kg more than 1999 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 Sixty (582 Nm) has 208 more torque (in Nm) than 1999 Ford Falcon. (374 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1999 Ford Falcon.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 1999 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Sixty | Falcon |
| Year Released | 1962 | 1999 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 3984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 232 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 374 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 92.3 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 99.3 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 1530 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4910 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2840 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 68 L |
