2000 Chrysler ESX 3 vs. 1976 Volvo 66
To start off, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 is newer by 24 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1976 Volvo 66. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1976 Volvo 66 would be higher. At 1,499 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 (74 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 1976 Volvo 66. (56 HP @ 5400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 should accelerate faster than 1976 Volvo 66.
Because 1976 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 1976 Volvo 66. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3, 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, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 (332 Nm) has 238 more torque (in Nm) than 1976 Volvo 66. (94 Nm). This means 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1976 Volvo 66.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 | 1976 Volvo 66 | |
| Make | Chrysler | Volvo |
| Model | ESX 3 | 66 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1976 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1499 cc | 1289 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 74 HP | 56 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5400 RPM |
| Torque | 332 Nm | 94 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 3910 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1550 mm |
