1965 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Volvo V40
To start off, 2004 Volvo V40 is newer by 39 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1965 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1965 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1965 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1965 Cadillac Sixty (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 39 more horse power than 2004 Volvo V40. (169 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1965 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 2004 Volvo V40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1965 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 835 kg more than 2004 Volvo V40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1965 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 1965 Cadillac Sixty. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Volvo V40, 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:
1965 Cadillac Sixty | 2004 Volvo V40 | |
Make | Cadillac | Volvo |
Model | Sixty | V40 |
Year Released | 1965 | 2004 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 7029 cc | 1950 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 208 HP | 169 HP |
Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 1280 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4530 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2570 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 95 L | 60 L |