1997 Citroen Xsara vs. 1980 Volvo 66
To start off, 1997 Citroen Xsara is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Volvo 66. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Volvo 66 would be higher. At 1,761 cc (4 cylinders), 1997 Citroen Xsara is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Volvo 66 (56 HP @ 5100 RPM) has 1 more horse power than 1997 Citroen Xsara. (55 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1980 Volvo 66 should accelerate faster than 1997 Citroen Xsara.
Because 1980 Volvo 66 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 66. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1997 Citroen Xsara, 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, 1997 Citroen Xsara (110 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 16 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Volvo 66. (94 Nm @ 2800 RPM). This means 1997 Citroen Xsara will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Volvo 66.
Compare all specifications:
1997 Citroen Xsara | 1980 Volvo 66 | |
Make | Citroen | Volvo |
Model | Xsara | 66 |
Year Released | 1997 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1761 cc | 1287 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 55 HP | 56 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5100 RPM |
Torque | 110 Nm | 94 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2800 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83 mm | 73 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 81.4 mm | 77 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.3:1 | 8.5:1 |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4170 mm | 3910 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1550 mm |