1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2001 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2001 Ford Mustang is newer by 38 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 660 kg more than 2001 Ford Mustang.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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:
| 1963 Cadillac 62 | 2001 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2001 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4605 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 260 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 2140 kg | 1480 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4660 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2580 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 59 L |
