1982 Mitsubishi Sigma vs. 2006 Volvo S40
To start off, 2006 Volvo S40 is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma would be higher. At 1,948 cc (4 cylinders), 2006 Volvo S40 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Volvo S40 (134 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 45 more horse power than 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma. (89 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Volvo S40 should accelerate faster than 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma.
Because 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma 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 Mitsubishi Sigma. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Volvo S40, 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, 2006 Volvo S40 (190 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 72 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma. (118 Nm @ 3200 RPM). This means 2006 Volvo S40 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Mitsubishi Sigma.
Compare all specifications:
1982 Mitsubishi Sigma | 2006 Volvo S40 | |
Make | Mitsubishi | Volvo |
Model | Sigma | S40 |
Year Released | 1982 | 2006 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1597 cc | 1948 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 89 HP | 134 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 118 Nm | 190 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Length | 4460 mm | 4520 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1660 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2520 mm | 2570 mm |