2003 Acura RSX vs. 1963 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2003 Acura RSX is newer by 40 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 874 kg more than 2003 Acura RSX.
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, 2003 Acura RSX, 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:
| 2003 Acura RSX | 1963 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Acura | Cadillac |
| Model | RSX | 62 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 6390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1266 kg | 2140 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 5670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 L | 79 L |
