1963 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2002 Holden UTE
To start off, 2002 Holden UTE is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Holden UTE (204 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1963 Cadillac Sixty. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2002 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 1963 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 625 kg more than 2002 Holden UTE.
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. Let's talk about torque, 1963 Cadillac Sixty (582 Nm) has 276 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Holden UTE. (306 Nm). This means 1963 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Holden UTE.
Compare all specifications:
1963 Cadillac Sixty | 2002 Holden UTE | |
Make | Cadillac | Holden |
Model | Sixty | UTE |
Year Released | 1963 | 2002 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 3791 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 204 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 582 Nm | 306 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2125 kg | 1500 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 5060 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1490 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2950 mm |