2003 Caterham 7 vs. 1980 Volvo 265
To start off, 2003 Caterham 7 is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Volvo 265. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Volvo 265 would be higher. At 2,849 cc (6 cylinders), 1980 Volvo 265 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Caterham 7 (160 HP @ 7500 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1980 Volvo 265. (153 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Caterham 7 should accelerate faster than 1980 Volvo 265. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Volvo 265 weights approximately 920 kg more than 2003 Caterham 7.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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. Let's talk about torque, 1980 Volvo 265 (230 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 54 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Caterham 7. (176 Nm @ 5750 RPM). This means 1980 Volvo 265 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Caterham 7.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Caterham 7 | 1980 Volvo 265 | |
Make | Caterham | Volvo |
Model | 7 | 265 |
Year Released | 2003 | 1980 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1794 cc | 2849 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 153 HP |
Engine RPM | 7500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 176 Nm | 230 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5750 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 80 mm | 91.1 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 89.3 mm | 73 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Weight | 500 kg | 1420 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3110 mm | 4890 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1580 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 810 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2230 mm | 2660 mm |