2003 Ford Mustang vs. 2012 Volvo C30
To start off, 2012 Volvo C30 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,599 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Ford Mustang weights approximately 29 kg more than 2012 Volvo C30.
Because 2003 Ford Mustang 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 2003 Ford Mustang. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 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:
| 2003 Ford Mustang | 2012 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Ford | Volvo |
| Model | Mustang | C30 |
| Year Released | 2003 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Convertible | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4599 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 400 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Flex Fuel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1480 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 60 L |
