1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 1962 Mini MK I
To start off, 1966 Cadillac Sixty is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Mini MK I. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Mini MK I would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Cadillac Sixty (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 174 more horse power than 1962 Mini MK I. (34 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 1962 Mini MK I. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 1500 kg more than 1962 Mini MK I. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1966 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 1966 Cadillac Sixty. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1962 Mini MK I, 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:
| 1966 Cadillac Sixty | 1962 Mini MK I | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mini |
| Model | Sixty | MK I |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 848 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 34 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 615 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 3060 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1420 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2040 mm |
