1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Dodge Ram
To start off, 2004 Dodge Ram is newer by 41 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. 2004 Dodge Ram weights approximately 1094 kg more than 1963 Cadillac 62.
Because 2004 Dodge Ram is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1963 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Dodge Ram will offer significantly more control. 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 | 2004 Dodge Ram | |
| Make | Cadillac | Dodge |
| Model | 62 | Ram |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 5882 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 305 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Vehicle Weight | 2055 kg | 3149 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 5790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 2020 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 3580 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 129 L |
