2005 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1964 Volvo 220
To start off, 2005 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 41 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Volvo 220. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Volvo 220 would be higher. At 2,926 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Land Rover Range Rover (175 HP @ 2000 RPM) has 101 more horse power than 1964 Volvo 220. (74 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1964 Volvo 220. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 1485 kg more than 1964 Volvo 220. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2005 Land Rover Range Rover (390 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 246 more torque (in Nm) than 1964 Volvo 220. (144 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 2005 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1964 Volvo 220.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Land Rover Range Rover | 1964 Volvo 220 | |
Make | Land Rover | Volvo |
Model | Range Rover | 220 |
Year Released | 2005 | 1964 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2926 cc | 1776 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 175 HP | 74 HP |
Engine RPM | 2000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Torque | 390 Nm | 144 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 2300 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 18.0:1 | 8.7:1 |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2500 kg | 1015 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4960 mm | 4460 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1960 mm | 1620 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1870 mm | 1510 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2610 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 100 L | 45 L |