1964 Cadillac 62 vs. 2013 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2013 Toyota Tundra is newer by 49 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, 2013 Toyota Tundra (376 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 168 more horse power than 1964 Cadillac 62. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Toyota Tundra should accelerate faster than 1964 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Toyota Tundra weights approximately 320 kg more than 1964 Cadillac 62. 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 | 2013 Toyota Tundra | |
| Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
| Model | 62 | Tundra |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2013 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 5700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 376 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2030 kg | 2350 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5690 mm | 5810 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 2030 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1935 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 3700 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 100 L |
