2006 Chevrolet HHR vs. 1983 Volvo 240
To start off, 2006 Chevrolet HHR is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Volvo 240. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Volvo 240 would be higher. At 2,316 cc (4 cylinders), 1983 Volvo 240 is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1983 Volvo 240 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 1983 Volvo 240. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Chevrolet HHR, 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. Let's talk about torque, 2006 Chevrolet HHR (203 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 18 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Volvo 240. (185 Nm @ 2750 RPM). This means 2006 Chevrolet HHR will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Volvo 240. 2006 Chevrolet HHR has automatic transmission and 1983 Volvo 240 has manual transmission. 1983 Volvo 240 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2006 Chevrolet HHR will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Chevrolet HHR | 1983 Volvo 240 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Volvo |
Model | HHR | 240 |
Year Released | 2006 | 1983 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2199 cc | 2316 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 112 HP |
Torque | 203 Nm | 185 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2750 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1730 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1570 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2660 mm |