1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2001 Volkswagen Polo
To start off, 2001 Volkswagen Polo 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 6,388 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 1095 kg more than 2001 Volkswagen Polo.
Because 1963 Cadillac 62 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 1963 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Volkswagen Polo, 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:
| 1963 Cadillac 62 | 2001 Volkswagen Polo | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volkswagen |
| Model | 62 | Polo |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2001 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 1390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 74 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 2055 kg | 960 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 3900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2520 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 55 L |
