1966 Austin A 40 vs. 1954 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1966 Austin A 40 is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1954 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1954 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 5,423 cc (8 cylinders), 1954 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1954 Cadillac 62 (267 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 220 more horse power than 1966 Austin A 40. (47 HP @ 5100 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1954 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1966 Austin A 40. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1954 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1238 kg more than 1966 Austin A 40. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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:
| 1966 Austin A 40 | 1954 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Austin | Cadillac |
| Model | A 40 | 62 |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1954 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1098 cc | 5423 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 47 HP | 267 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5100 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 762 kg | 2000 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3690 mm | 5510 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1520 mm | 2050 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1590 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2220 mm | 3290 mm |
