1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2010 Ford E-350
To start off, 2010 Ford E-350 is newer by 48 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 639 kg more than 2010 Ford E-350.
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, 2010 Ford E-350, 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 350 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Ford E-350. (232 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Ford E-350.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2010 Ford E-350 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Sixty | E-350 |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 5400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 171 HP |
| Torque | 582 Nm | 232 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 2135 kg | 1496 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4437 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1725 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2619 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 62 L |
