1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2000 Mercedes-Benz E
To start off, 2000 Mercedes-Benz E is newer by 38 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 690 kg more than 2000 Mercedes-Benz E.
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 52 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Mercedes-Benz E. (530 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Mercedes-Benz E.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2000 Mercedes-Benz E | |
Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
Model | Sixty | E |
Year Released | 1962 | 2000 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6388 cc | 5439 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 349 HP |
Torque | 582 Nm | 530 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 97 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 91.9 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 1445 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4820 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2720 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 88 L |