1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2008 Land Rover LR2
To start off, 2008 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 42 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, 2008 Land Rover LR2 (230 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 22 more horse power than 1966 Cadillac Sixty. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Land Rover LR2 should accelerate faster than 1966 Cadillac Sixty.
Because 2008 Land Rover LR2 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, 2008 Land Rover LR2 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 | 2008 Land Rover LR2 | |
| Make | Cadillac | Land Rover |
| Model | Sixty | LR2 |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2008 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 3201 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 230 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6300 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 2180 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 2670 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 70 L |
