1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Mazda 6
To start off, 2003 Mazda 6 is newer by 40 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 59 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 6. (138 HP @ 3500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1963 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 6. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 550 kg more than 2003 Mazda 6. 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 | 2003 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Cadillac | Mazda |
Model | 62 | 6 |
Year Released | 1963 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 1999 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 138 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 3500 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 86 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 86 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2090 kg | 1540 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5680 mm | 4710 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1490 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 64 L |