1962 Austin A 99 vs. 1980 Volvo 66
To start off, 1980 Volvo 66 is newer by 18 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Austin A 99. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Austin A 99 would be higher. At 2,912 cc (6 cylinders), 1962 Austin A 99 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1962 Austin A 99 (110 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 54 more horse power than 1980 Volvo 66. (56 HP @ 5100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1962 Austin A 99 should accelerate faster than 1980 Volvo 66.
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. Let's talk about torque, 1962 Austin A 99 (221 Nm @ 2500 RPM) has 127 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Volvo 66. (94 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 1962 Austin A 99 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Volvo 66.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Austin A 99 | 1980 Volvo 66 | |
Make | Austin | Volvo |
Model | A 99 | 66 |
Year Released | 1962 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2912 cc | 1287 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 110 HP | 56 HP |
Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 5100 RPM |
Torque | 221 Nm | 94 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 2800 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83.4 mm | 73 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 88.9 mm | 77 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 8.3:1 | 8.5:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4950 mm | 3910 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1550 mm |