1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Lincoln LS
To start off, 2004 Lincoln LS is newer by 38 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, 2004 Lincoln LS (280 HP) has 72 more horse power than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Lincoln LS should accelerate faster than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 386 kg more than 2004 Lincoln LS.
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 | 2004 Lincoln LS | |
| Make | Cadillac | Lincoln |
| Model | Sixty | LS |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3933 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 280 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 1729 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4940 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1870 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2910 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 68 L |
