1963 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2003 Ford Mustang
To start off, 2003 Ford Mustang is newer by 40 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, 2003 Ford Mustang (305 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 108 more horse power than 1963 Cadillac Sixty. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1963 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 549 kg more than 2003 Ford Mustang.
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 148 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Ford Mustang. (434 Nm). This means 1963 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
1963 Cadillac Sixty | 2003 Ford Mustang | |
Make | Cadillac | Ford |
Model | Sixty | Mustang |
Year Released | 1963 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6390 cc | 4601 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 197 HP | 305 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 582 Nm | 434 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2125 kg | 1576 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4660 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2580 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 59 L |