1998 BMW 320 vs. 1962 Cadillac Sixty
To start off, 1998 BMW 320 is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 685 kg more than 1998 BMW 320.
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 Sixty (582 Nm) has 301 more torque (in Nm) than 1998 BMW 320. (281 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 BMW 320.
Compare all specifications:
| 1998 BMW 320 | 1962 Cadillac Sixty | |
| Make | BMW | Cadillac |
| Model | 320 | Sixty |
| Year Released | 1998 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1951 cc | 6388 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 134 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 281 Nm | 582 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 101.6 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88 mm | 98.4 mm |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1450 kg | 2135 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 5650 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 75 L |
