1964 Cadillac Sixty 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 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 40 more horse power than 2003 Volvo V70. (168 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 2003 Volvo V70. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1964 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 350 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.
Because 2003 Volvo V70 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1964 Cadillac Sixty. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Volvo V70 will offer significantly more control. 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 Volvo V70 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
| Model | Sixty | V70 |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2003 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7027 cc | 2399 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2120 kg | 1770 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4720 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1490 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2770 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 70 L |
