1964 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2010 Jeep Compass
To start off, 2010 Jeep Compass is newer by 46 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 50 more horse power than 2010 Jeep Compass. (158 HP @ 6400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1964 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 2010 Jeep Compass.
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, 2010 Jeep Compass, 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 | 2010 Jeep Compass | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jeep |
| Model | Sixty | Compass |
| Year Released | 1964 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7027 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 5670 mm | 4404 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1656 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2634 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 79 L | 51 L |
