1999 Acura Integra vs. 1963 Cadillac 62
To start off, 1999 Acura Integra 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 6,388 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 885 kg more than 1999 Acura Integra.
Because 1963 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 1963 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Acura Integra, 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:
| 1999 Acura Integra | 1963 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Acura | Cadillac |
| Model | Integra | 62 |
| Year Released | 1999 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1795 cc | 6388 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 138 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1170 kg | 2055 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4530 mm | 5670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 79 L |
