2000 Ford Puma vs. 2010 Volvo C30
To start off, 2010 Volvo C30 is newer by 10 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Ford Puma. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Ford Puma would be higher. At 1,679 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Ford Puma is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Puma (153 HP) has 52 more horse power than 2010 Volvo C30. (101 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Puma should accelerate faster than 2010 Volvo C30. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Volvo C30 weights approximately 176 kg more than 2000 Ford Puma.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Puma | 2010 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Ford | Volvo |
| Model | Puma | C30 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1679 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 153 HP | 101 HP |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1275 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3990 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2450 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 42 L | 60 L |
