1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 1999 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1999 Ford Mustang is newer by 35 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 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Cadillac 62 (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 21 more horse power than 1999 Ford Mustang. (187 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1999 Ford Mustang. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 620 kg more than 1999 Ford Mustang. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Cadillac 62 | 1999 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1964 | 1999 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3801 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 187 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2030 kg | 1410 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5690 mm | 4620 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2580 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 45 L |
