2005 MCC Crossblade vs. 1980 Volvo 265
To start off, 2005 MCC Crossblade is newer by 25 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Volvo 265. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Volvo 265 would be higher. At 2,849 cc (6 cylinders), 1980 Volvo 265 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1980 Volvo 265 (153 HP) has 83 more horse power than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1980 Volvo 265 should accelerate faster than 2005 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1980 Volvo 265 weights approximately 676 kg more than 2005 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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, 1980 Volvo 265 (230 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 128 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1980 Volvo 265 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 MCC Crossblade.
Compare all specifications:
2005 MCC Crossblade | 1980 Volvo 265 | |
Make | MCC | Volvo |
Model | Crossblade | 265 |
Year Released | 2005 | 1980 |
Engine Size | 599 cc | 2849 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 70 HP | 153 HP |
Torque | 102 Nm | 230 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3210 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Weight | 744 kg | 1420 kg |
Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4890 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1720 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1450 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2660 mm |