1981 Volvo 240 vs. 2000 Plymouth Neon
To start off, 2000 Plymouth Neon is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1981 Volvo 240. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1981 Volvo 240 would be higher. At 2,127 cc (4 cylinders), 1981 Volvo 240 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1981 Volvo 240 (96 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 37 more horse power than 2000 Plymouth Neon. (59 HP @ 3600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1981 Volvo 240 should accelerate faster than 2000 Plymouth Neon.
Because 1981 Volvo 240 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 1981 Volvo 240. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Plymouth Neon, 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, 2000 Plymouth Neon (160 Nm @ 1500 RPM) has 33 more torque (in Nm) than 1981 Volvo 240. (127 Nm @ 2500 RPM). This means 2000 Plymouth Neon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1981 Volvo 240.
Compare all specifications:
| 1981 Volvo 240 | 2000 Plymouth Neon | |
| Make | Volvo | Plymouth |
| Model | 240 | Neon |
| Year Released | 1981 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2127 cc | 1687 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 96 HP | 59 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5250 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Torque | 127 Nm | 160 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2500 RPM | 1500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 4370 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1720 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1380 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 2650 mm |
