1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 1997 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1997 Ford Mustang is newer by 33 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 7,028 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1997 Ford Mustang (212 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 4 more horse power than 1964 Cadillac 62. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1997 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1964 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 599 kg more than 1997 Ford Mustang.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Cadillac 62 | 1997 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1964 | 1997 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7028 cc | 4942 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 212 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2075 kg | 1476 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5680 mm | 4660 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2580 mm |
