1982 Mazda 626 vs. 1996 Volvo V40
To start off, 1996 Volvo V40 is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 1,870 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Volvo V40 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Volvo V40 weights approximately 200 kg more than 1982 Mazda 626.
Because 1982 Mazda 626 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 1982 Mazda 626. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Volvo V40, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Mazda 626 | 1996 Volvo V40 | |
Make | Mazda | Volvo |
Model | 626 | V40 |
Year Released | 1982 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1586 cc | 1870 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 89 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1045 kg | 1245 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4310 mm | 4490 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1670 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1380 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2570 mm |