2003 Audi TT vs. 1962 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2003 Audi TT 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 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Audi TT (237 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 40 more horse power than 1962 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Audi TT should accelerate faster than 1962 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 535 kg more than 2003 Audi TT.
Because 2003 Audi TT is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1962 Cadillac 62. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Audi TT will offer significantly more control. 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 243 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Audi TT. (339 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Audi TT.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Audi TT | 1962 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Audi | Cadillac |
| Model | TT | 62 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2983 cc | 6388 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 237 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 582 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1520 kg | 2055 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4010 mm | 5650 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 75 L |
