2003 Bristol Blenheim vs. 1960 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2003 Bristol Blenheim is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1960 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1960 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,390 cc (8 cylinders), 1960 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Bristol Blenheim (350 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 153 more horse power than 1960 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Bristol Blenheim should accelerate faster than 1960 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1960 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 460 kg more than 2003 Bristol Blenheim.
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:
| 2003 Bristol Blenheim | 1960 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Bristol | Cadillac |
| Model | Blenheim | 62 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1960 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5898 cc | 6390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 350 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1740 kg | 2200 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4830 mm | 5730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2910 mm | 3310 mm |
