1963 Cadillac 62 vs. 2010 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2010 Toyota Tundra is newer by 47 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 808 kg more than 2010 Toyota Tundra.
Because 2010 Toyota Tundra 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, 2010 Toyota Tundra 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 | 2010 Toyota Tundra | |
Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
Model | 62 | Tundra |
Year Released | 1963 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 5663 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 381 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Vehicle Weight | 2140 kg | 1332 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 5820 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1940 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 3710 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 100 L |