1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2003 Honda Fit
To start off, 2003 Honda Fit is newer by 41 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 1075 kg more than 2003 Honda Fit.
Because 1962 Cadillac Sixty 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 1962 Cadillac Sixty. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Honda Fit, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac Sixty (582 Nm) has 451 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Honda Fit. (131 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Honda Fit.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2003 Honda Fit | |
| Make | Cadillac | Honda |
| Model | Sixty | Fit |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 1496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 90 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 131 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 75 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 79 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 1060 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4320 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1490 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2460 mm |
