1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 2010 Ford Flex
To start off, 2010 Ford Flex is newer by 46 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, 2010 Ford Flex (262 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 54 more horse power than 1964 Cadillac 62. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford Flex should accelerate faster than 1964 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 2 kg more than 2010 Ford Flex.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Cadillac 62 | 2010 Ford Flex | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | 62 | Flex |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3500 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 262 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2030 kg | 2028 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5690 mm | 5126 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1928 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1727 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2995 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 70 L |
