1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2009 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2009 Jaguar XF is newer by 46 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.
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 | 2009 Jaguar XF | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jaguar |
| Model | 62 | XF |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 4196 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 420 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4970 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2910 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 70 L |
