1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 1995 Mercedes-Benz E
To start off, 1995 Mercedes-Benz E is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1963 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1995 Mercedes-Benz E. (190 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1963 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1995 Mercedes-Benz E. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 520 kg more than 1995 Mercedes-Benz E. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Compare all specifications:
| 1963 Cadillac 62 | 1995 Mercedes-Benz E | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercedes-Benz |
| Model | 62 | E |
| Year Released | 1963 | 1995 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 2797 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 190 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 89.9 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 73.5 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2090 kg | 1570 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5680 mm | 4800 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2840 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 80 L |
