1996 Renault Clio vs. 1964 Volvo 120
To start off, 1996 Renault Clio is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Volvo 120. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Volvo 120 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Renault Clio is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Renault Clio (250 HP) has 183 more horse power than 1964 Volvo 120. (67 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Renault Clio should accelerate faster than 1964 Volvo 120. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Renault Clio weights approximately 640 kg more than 1964 Volvo 120. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1996 Renault Clio (407 Nm) has 263 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Volvo 120. (144 Nm). This means 1996 Renault Clio will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Volvo 120.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Renault Clio | 1964 Volvo 120 | |
| Make | Renault | Volvo |
| Model | Clio | 120 |
| Year Released | 1996 | 1964 |
| Engine Position | Middle | Front |
| Engine Size | 3000 cc | 1778 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 250 HP | 67 HP |
| Torque | 407 Nm | 144 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1650 kg | 1010 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3780 mm | 4460 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1640 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2610 mm |
