1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport
To start off, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (390 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 193 more horse power than 1963 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport should accelerate faster than 1963 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport weights approximately 482 kg more than 1963 Cadillac 62. 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 | 2009 Land Rover Range Rover Sport | |
| Make | Cadillac | Land Rover |
| Model | 62 | Range Rover Sport |
| Year Released | 1963 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4195 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 390 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5750 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 101.6 mm | 84 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 98.4 mm | 96 mm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2090 kg | 2572 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5680 mm | 4790 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1930 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1820 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2750 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 88 L |
