2006 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1962 Volvo 220
To start off, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 44 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Volvo 220. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Volvo 220 would be higher. At 4,392 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover (305 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 231 more horse power than 1962 Volvo 220. (74 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1962 Volvo 220. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 385 kg more than 1962 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, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover (441 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 297 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Volvo 220. (144 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 2006 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Volvo 220.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Land Rover Range Rover | 1962 Volvo 220 | |
| Make | Land Rover | Volvo |
| Model | Range Rover | 220 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1962 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4392 cc | 1778 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 305 HP | 74 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5750 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Torque | 441 Nm | 144 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2300 RPM |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1400 kg | 1015 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4980 mm | 4460 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1960 mm | 1620 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1910 mm | 1510 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 104 L | 45 L |
