1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 2003 Volvo V70
To start off, 2003 Volvo V70 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 7,028 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Cadillac 62 (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 2003 Volvo V70. (168 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 2003 Volvo V70. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 305 kg more than 2003 Volvo V70. 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 Volvo V70 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
Model | 62 | V70 |
Year Released | 1964 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7028 cc | 2399 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 168 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2075 kg | 1770 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5680 mm | 4720 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1490 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2770 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 70 L |