1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 2000 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2000 Toyota Tundra is newer by 36 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, 2000 Toyota Tundra (242 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 34 more horse power than 1964 Cadillac 62. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2000 Toyota Tundra should accelerate faster than 1964 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 125 kg more than 2000 Toyota Tundra.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Cadillac 62 | 2000 Toyota Tundra | |
| Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
| Model | 62 | Tundra |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7028 cc | 4663 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 242 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Vehicle Weight | 2075 kg | 1950 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5680 mm | 5530 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1920 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1800 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 3270 mm |
