1980 Lada Niva vs. 2013 Ford Transit Connect
To start off, 2013 Ford Transit Connect is newer by 33 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Lada Niva. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Lada Niva would be higher. At 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Ford Transit Connect is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Ford Transit Connect (134 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 58 more horse power than 1980 Lada Niva. (76 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Ford Transit Connect should accelerate faster than 1980 Lada Niva. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Ford Transit Connect weights approximately 439 kg more than 1980 Lada Niva. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1980 Lada Niva is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2013 Ford Transit Connect. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1980 Lada Niva will offer significantly more control. 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, 2013 Ford Transit Connect (174 Nm @ 4750 RPM) has 64 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Lada Niva. (110 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2013 Ford Transit Connect will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Lada Niva. 2013 Ford Transit Connect has automatic transmission and 1980 Lada Niva has manual transmission. 1980 Lada Niva will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2013 Ford Transit Connect will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 1980 Lada Niva | 2013 Ford Transit Connect | |
| Make | Lada | Ford |
| Model | Niva | Transit Connect |
| Year Released | 1980 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Minivan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1452 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 76 HP | 134 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6300 RPM |
| Torque | 110 Nm | 174 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4750 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 82 mm | 87 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 71 mm | 83 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 4-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1150 kg | 1589 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3730 mm | 4587 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 2113 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 2014 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2911 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 43 L | 56 L |
