1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2003 MCC ForFour
To start off, 2003 MCC ForFour 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 1165 kg more than 2003 MCC ForFour.
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 MCC ForFour, 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 457 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MCC ForFour. (125 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MCC ForFour.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2003 MCC ForFour | |
| Make | Cadillac | MCC |
| Model | Sixty | ForFour |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 1331 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 93 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 125 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 75 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 75.4 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 970 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 3760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1460 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2510 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 47 L |
