1978 Mazda 626 vs. 1979 Volvo 260
To start off, 1979 Volvo 260 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1978 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1978 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 2,664 cc (6 cylinders), 1979 Volvo 260 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1979 Volvo 260 weights approximately 305 kg more than 1978 Mazda 626.
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. 1979 Volvo 260 has automatic transmission and 1978 Mazda 626 has manual transmission. 1978 Mazda 626 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1979 Volvo 260 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
1978 Mazda 626 | 1979 Volvo 260 | |
Make | Mazda | Volvo |
Model | 626 | 260 |
Year Released | 1978 | 1979 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1586 cc | 2664 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 146 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1045 kg | 1350 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4310 mm | 4890 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1670 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2660 mm |