2003 Holden UTE vs. 2009 Volvo C30
To start off, 2009 Volvo C30 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Holden UTE. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Holden UTE would be higher. At 3,791 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Holden UTE (204 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 96 more horse power than 2009 Volvo C30. (108 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 2009 Volvo C30.
Because 2003 Holden UTE 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 Holden UTE. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 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. Let's talk about torque, 2003 Holden UTE (305 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 65 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Volvo C30. (240 Nm @ 1500 RPM). This means 2003 Holden UTE will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Volvo C30.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Holden UTE | 2009 Volvo C30 | |
Make | Holden | Volvo |
Model | UTE | C30 |
Year Released | 2003 | 2009 |
Body Type | Pickup | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3791 cc | 1560 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 204 HP | 108 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 305 Nm | 240 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 1500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5060 mm | 4260 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1830 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2650 mm |