1964 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2003 Dodge Ram
To start off, 2003 Dodge Ram is newer by 39 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, 2003 Dodge Ram (215 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1964 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2003 Dodge Ram should accelerate faster than 1964 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 190 kg more than 2003 Dodge Ram.
Because 1964 Cadillac Sixty is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1964 Cadillac Sixty. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Dodge Ram, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 | 2003 Dodge Ram | |
| Make | Cadillac | Dodge |
| Model | Sixty | Ram |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7027 cc | 3700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 215 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 2120 kg | 1930 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 5280 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1900 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 3030 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 76 L |
