2004 Ford Mustang 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 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,009 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Ford Mustang weights approximately 69 kg more than 2012 Volvo C30.
Because 2004 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 2004 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:
2004 Ford Mustang | 2012 Volvo C30 | |
Make | Ford | Volvo |
Model | Mustang | C30 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Coupe | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4009 cc | 1600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 211 HP | 0 HP |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1520 kg | 1451 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 4252 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1783 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1448 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2639 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 60 L |