1969 Bristol 410 vs. 1960 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1969 Bristol 410 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1960 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1969 Bristol 410 (215 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1969 Bristol 410 should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 600 kg more than 1969 Bristol 410.
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:
| 1969 Bristol 410 | 1960 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Bristol | Cadillac |
| Model | 410 | 62 |
| Year Released | 1969 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5211 cc | 6390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 215 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1600 kg | 2200 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 5730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1510 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2910 mm | 3310 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 81 L | 79 L |
