1964 Cadillac Sixty vs. 1992 Volvo 240
To start off, 1992 Volvo 240 is newer by 28 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 7,027 cc (8 cylinders), 1964 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1964 Cadillac Sixty (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 112 more horse power than 1992 Volvo 240. (96 HP @ 5400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 1992 Volvo 240. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 824 kg more than 1992 Volvo 240. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
| 1964 Cadillac Sixty | 1992 Volvo 240 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
| Model | Sixty | 240 |
| Year Released | 1964 | 1992 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7027 cc | 1986 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 96 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2120 kg | 1296 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4790 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1730 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1440 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2660 mm |
