1969 Triumph 2000 vs. 2010 Volvo C30
To start off, 2010 Volvo C30 is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1969 Triumph 2000. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1969 Triumph 2000 would be higher. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Volvo C30 weights approximately 281 kg more than 1969 Triumph 2000.
Because 1969 Triumph 2000 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 1969 Triumph 2000. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Volvo C30, 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, 2010 Volvo C30 (350 Nm) has 192 more torque (in Nm) than 1969 Triumph 2000. (158 Nm). This means 2010 Volvo C30 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1969 Triumph 2000.
Compare all specifications:
| 1969 Triumph 2000 | 2010 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Triumph | Volvo |
| Model | 2000 | C30 |
| Year Released | 1969 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 89 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 158 Nm | 350 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1170 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 60 L |
