1967 Bristol 409 vs. 1962 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1967 Bristol 409 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1967 Bristol 409 (215 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1967 Bristol 409 should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 455 kg more than 1967 Bristol 409.
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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac 62 (582 Nm) has 119 more torque (in Nm) than 1967 Bristol 409. (463 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1967 Bristol 409.
Compare all specifications:
1967 Bristol 409 | 1962 Cadillac 62 | |
Make | Bristol | Cadillac |
Model | 409 | 62 |
Year Released | 1967 | 1962 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5210 cc | 6388 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 215 HP | 197 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Torque | 463 Nm | 582 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 98.6 mm | 101.6 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 84.1 mm | 98.4 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 1600 kg | 2055 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 5650 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2910 mm | 3300 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 81 L | 75 L |