1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2003 Cadillac CTS is newer by 39 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 29 more horse power than 2003 Cadillac CTS. (179 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Cadillac CTS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 410 kg more than 2003 Cadillac CTS. 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 | 2003 Cadillac CTS | |
Make | Cadillac | Cadillac |
Model | 62 | CTS |
Year Released | 1964 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7029 cc | 2597 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 179 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2030 kg | 1620 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5690 mm | 4840 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1800 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 64 L |