2002 Ford Econovan vs. 2010 Volvo C30
To start off, 2010 Volvo C30 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Ford Econovan. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Ford Econovan would be higher. At 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Volvo C30 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Volvo C30 weights approximately 156 kg more than 2002 Ford Econovan.
Because 2002 Ford Econovan 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 2002 Ford Econovan. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Volvo C30, 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.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Ford Econovan | 2010 Volvo C30 | |
Make | Ford | Volvo |
Model | Econovan | C30 |
Year Released | 2002 | 2010 |
Body Type | Van | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1789 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 90 HP | 0 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Flex Fuel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 1295 kg | 1451 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 4252 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1640 mm | 1783 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1870 mm | 1448 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2210 mm | 2639 mm |