2004 Audi A6 vs. 1962 Cadillac Sixty
To start off, 2004 Audi A6 is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1962 Cadillac Sixty weights approximately 473 kg more than 2004 Audi A6.
Because 1962 Cadillac Sixty 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 1962 Cadillac Sixty. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Cadillac Sixty (582 Nm) has 347 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Audi A6. (235 Nm). This means 1962 Cadillac Sixty will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Audi A6.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Audi A6 | 1962 Cadillac Sixty | |
| Make | Audi | Cadillac |
| Model | A6 | Sixty |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2496 cc | 6388 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 180 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 235 Nm | 582 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 81 mm | 101.6 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 77.4 mm | 98.4 mm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1662 kg | 2135 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4940 mm | 5650 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 75 L |
