2004 Dodge Durango vs. 2012 Volvo C30
To start off, 2012 Volvo C30 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Dodge Durango. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Dodge Durango would be higher. At 3,704 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Dodge Durango is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Dodge Durango weights approximately 668 kg more than 2012 Volvo C30.
Because 2004 Dodge Durango 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 2004 Dodge Durango. 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:
| 2004 Dodge Durango | 2012 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Dodge | Volvo |
| Model | Durango | C30 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3704 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2119 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5110 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1890 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.4 L/100km | 3.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 102 L | 60 L |
