1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 1990 Ford RS 200
To start off, 1990 Ford RS 200 is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 7,029 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1990 Ford RS 200 (250 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 42 more horse power than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1990 Ford RS 200 should accelerate faster than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 935 kg more than 1990 Ford RS 200.
Because 1990 Ford RS 200 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1990 Ford RS 200 will offer significantly more control. 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 | 1990 Ford RS 200 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Sixty | RS 200 |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1990 |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 1798 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 250 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 1180 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4000 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1330 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2520 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 54 L |
