2005 Ford Thunderbird vs. 2011 Volvo C30
To start off, 2011 Volvo C30 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Ford Thunderbird. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Ford Thunderbird would be higher. At 3,933 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Ford Thunderbird is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Ford Thunderbird weights approximately 301 kg more than 2011 Volvo C30.
Because 2005 Ford Thunderbird 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 2005 Ford Thunderbird. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2011 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:
| 2005 Ford Thunderbird | 2011 Volvo C30 | |
| Make | Ford | Volvo |
| Model | Thunderbird | C30 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2011 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3933 cc | 1600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 280 HP | 0 HP |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1752 kg | 1451 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4740 mm | 4252 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1783 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1448 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2639 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 3.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 60 L |
