1966 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2010 Ford Ranger
To start off, 2010 Ford Ranger is newer by 44 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, 1966 Cadillac Sixty (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 1 more horse power than 2010 Ford Ranger. (207 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Cadillac Sixty should accelerate faster than 2010 Ford Ranger. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 451 kg more than 2010 Ford Ranger. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2010 Ford Ranger 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, 2010 Ford Ranger 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 | 2010 Ford Ranger | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Sixty | Ranger |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 7029 cc | 4000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 207 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Vehicle Weight | 2115 kg | 1664 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5790 mm | 5171 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1811 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1720 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3390 mm | 3198 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 82 L | 74 L |
