2004 Audi A6 vs. 1963 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2004 Audi A6 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 6,388 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 393 kg more than 2004 Audi A6.
Because 1963 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 1963 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 | 1963 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Audi | Cadillac |
| Model | A6 | 62 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1963 |
| 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 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1662 kg | 2055 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4940 mm | 5670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 79 L |
