1964 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2009 Smart ForTwo
To start off, 2009 Smart ForTwo is newer by 45 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 125 more horse power than 2009 Smart ForTwo. (83 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 2009 Smart ForTwo.
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 | 2009 Smart ForTwo | |
| Make | Cadillac | Smart |
| Model | Sixty | ForTwo |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2009 |
| Engine Position | Front | Rear |
| Engine Size | 7027 cc | 999 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 83 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 2700 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1550 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1570 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 1870 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 33 L |
