1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 1999 Ford Mustang
To start off, 1999 Ford Mustang is newer by 33 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, 1999 Ford Mustang (256 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 48 more horse power than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1999 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 633 kg more than 1999 Ford Mustang.
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 Cadillac Sixty | 1999 Ford Mustang | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Sixty | Mustang |
| Year Released | 1966 | 1999 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 4605 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 256 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 1482 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4660 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2580 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 59 L |
