2004 Volvo S60 vs. 2012 Chevrolet Malibu
To start off, 2012 Chevrolet Malibu is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Volvo S60. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Volvo S60 would be higher. At 2,435 cc (5 cylinders), 2004 Volvo S60 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Volvo S60 (247 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 78 more horse power than 2012 Chevrolet Malibu. (169 HP @ 6400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Volvo S60 should accelerate faster than 2012 Chevrolet Malibu.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2004 Volvo S60 (330 Nm) has 113 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Chevrolet Malibu. (217 Nm). This means 2004 Volvo S60 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Chevrolet Malibu.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Volvo S60 | 2012 Chevrolet Malibu | |
Make | Volvo | Chevrolet |
Model | S60 | Malibu |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2435 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 5 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 247 HP | 169 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6400 RPM |
Torque | 330 Nm | 217 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4580 mm | 4872 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1786 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2852 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 61 L |