2001 Mazda CU-X vs. 1980 Volvo 240

To start off, 2001 Mazda CU-X is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Volvo 240. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Volvo 240 would be higher. At 1,984 cc (4 cylinders), 1980 Volvo 240 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Volvo 240 (152 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 53 more horse power than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1980 Volvo 240 should accelerate faster than 2001 Mazda CU-X. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Volvo 240 weights approximately 95 kg more than 2001 Mazda CU-X. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 1980 Volvo 240 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 240. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X, 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, both vehicles can yield 240 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles. 2001 Mazda CU-X has automatic transmission and 1980 Volvo 240 has manual transmission. 1980 Volvo 240 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2001 Mazda CU-X will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: