1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2004 Volvo S60
To start off, 2004 Volvo S60 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 6,390 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 515 kg more than 2004 Volvo S60.
Because 2004 Volvo S60 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 Volvo S60 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 Volvo S60 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
| Model | 62 | S60 |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 2401 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 296 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Vehicle Weight | 2140 kg | 1625 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4610 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2730 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 70 L |
