1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Smart ForFour
To start off, 2004 Smart ForFour is newer by 42 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 1160 kg more than 2004 Smart 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, 2004 Smart 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2004 Smart ForFour | |
| Make | Cadillac | Smart |
| Model | Sixty | ForFour |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 1499 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 108 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 75.5 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 84.8 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 975 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 |
