1999 AC Cobra vs. 1963 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1999 AC Cobra is newer by 36 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1963 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1963 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1963 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1963 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1115 kg more than 1999 AC Cobra.
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:
| 1999 AC Cobra | 1963 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | AC | Cadillac |
| Model | Cobra | 62 |
| Year Released | 1999 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4942 cc | 6390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 365 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1025 kg | 2140 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4210 mm | 5670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1210 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 L | 79 L |
