1984 Audi 200 vs. 1960 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1984 Audi 200 is newer by 24 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, 1960 Cadillac 62 (197 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 17 more horse power than 1984 Audi 200. (180 HP @ 5700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1960 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1984 Audi 200. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 910 kg more than 1984 Audi 200. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1960 Cadillac 62 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1960 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1984 Audi 200, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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:
| 1984 Audi 200 | 1960 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Audi | Cadillac |
| Model | 200 | 62 |
| Year Released | 1984 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2144 cc | 6390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 5 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 180 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5700 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1290 kg | 2200 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4810 mm | 5730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2690 mm | 3310 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 79 L |
