1983 Mazda RX-7 vs. 2010 Volvo C30
To start off, 2010 Volvo C30 is newer by 27 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Mazda RX-7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Mazda RX-7 would be higher. At 2,292 cc, 1983 Mazda RX-7 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Volvo C30 weights approximately 391 kg more than 1983 Mazda RX-7.
Because 1983 Mazda RX-7 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 1983 Mazda RX-7. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Volvo C30, 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:
| 1983 Mazda RX-7 | 2010 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Mazda | Volvo |
| Model | RX-7 | C30 |
| Year Released | 1983 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2292 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
| Horse Power | 105 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1060 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1270 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 65 L | 60 L |
