1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass vs. 1980 Volvo 164
To start off, 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Volvo 164. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Volvo 164 would be higher. At 2,664 cc (6 cylinders), 1980 Volvo 164 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass (148 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 10 more horse power than 1980 Volvo 164. (138 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass should accelerate faster than 1980 Volvo 164.
Because 1980 Volvo 164 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 1980 Volvo 164. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 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, 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass (217 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 13 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Volvo 164. (204 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Volvo 164.
Compare all specifications:
1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass | 1980 Volvo 164 | |
Make | Oldsmobile | Volvo |
Model | Cutlass | 164 |
Year Released | 1987 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2260 cc | 2664 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 148 HP | 138 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 217 Nm | 204 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4550 mm | 5610 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1710 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 3350 mm |