2004 Aston Martin V12 vs. 1963 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2004 Aston Martin V12 is newer by 41 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 305 kg more than 2004 Aston Martin V12.
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:
| 2004 Aston Martin V12 | 1963 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Aston Martin | Cadillac |
| Model | V12 | 62 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5934 cc | 6390 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 12 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 460 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1835 kg | 2140 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 79 L |
