2005 Bristol Blenheim vs. 1963 Cadillac 62
To start off, 2005 Bristol Blenheim is newer by 42 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 660 kg more than 2005 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:
| 2005 Bristol Blenheim | 1963 Cadillac 62 | |
| Make | Bristol | Cadillac |
| Model | Blenheim | 62 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1963 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5900 cc | 6388 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 1395 kg | 2055 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4680 mm | 5670 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1120 mm | 1370 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 3300 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 105 L | 79 L |
