2004 Audi A6 vs. 1961 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2004 Audi A6 is newer by 43 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1961 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1961 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,389 cc (8 cylinders), 1961 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Audi A6 (247 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 50 more horse power than 1961 Cadillac 62. (197 HP @ 4800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Audi A6 should accelerate faster than 1961 Cadillac 62. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1961 Cadillac 62 weights approximately 418 kg more than 2004 Audi A6.
Because 1961 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 1961 Cadillac 62. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Audi A6, 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:
| 2004 Audi A6 | 1961 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Audi | Cadillac |
| Model | A6 | 62 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1961 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2671 cc | 6389 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 5 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 247 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 81 mm | 101.6 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 86 mm | 98.4 mm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1722 kg | 2140 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4880 mm | 5650 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 2040 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 79 L |
