1986 Caterham 1700 vs. 2000 Volvo C70
To start off, 2000 Volvo C70 is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1986 Caterham 1700. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1986 Caterham 1700 would be higher. At 1,984 cc (5 cylinders), 2000 Volvo C70 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1986 Caterham 1700 (168 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 2000 Volvo C70. (161 HP @ 5100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1986 Caterham 1700 should accelerate faster than 2000 Volvo C70.
Because 1986 Caterham 1700 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 1986 Caterham 1700. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Volvo C70, 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:
| 1986 Caterham 1700 | 2000 Volvo C70 | |
| Make | Caterham | Volvo |
| Model | 1700 | C70 |
| Year Released | 1986 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1692 cc | 1984 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 168 HP | 161 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 5100 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 9.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 3390 mm | 4730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1590 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1050 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2670 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 36 L | 68 L |
