1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2003 Skoda Octavia
To start off, 2003 Skoda Octavia 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.
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 Skoda Octavia, 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 342 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Skoda Octavia. (240 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Skoda Octavia.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2003 Skoda Octavia | |
| Make | Cadillac | Skoda |
| Model | Sixty | Octavia |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 1984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 101 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 79.5 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 95.5 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4510 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2520 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 55 L |
