2003 AC Cobra vs. 1962 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2003 AC Cobra is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 AC Cobra (350 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 153 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 AC Cobra should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 1078 kg more than 2003 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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac 62 (582 Nm) has 182 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 AC Cobra. (400 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 AC Cobra.
Compare all specifications:
2003 AC Cobra | 1962 Cadillac 62 | |
Make | AC | Cadillac |
Model | Cobra | 62 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1962 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3506 cc | 6390 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 350 HP | 197 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Torque | 400 Nm | 582 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 83 mm | 101.6 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 81 mm | 98.4 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1062 kg | 2140 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4210 mm | 5650 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1210 mm | 1370 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 3300 mm |