2009 Ford E-250 vs. 2005 Volvo V70
To start off, 2009 Ford E-250 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Volvo V70. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Volvo V70 would be higher. At 4,606 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Ford E-250 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Ford E-250 (225 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 28 more horse power than 2005 Volvo V70. (197 HP @ 5250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Ford E-250 should accelerate faster than 2005 Volvo V70. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Volvo V70 weights approximately 499 kg more than 2009 Ford E-250.
Because 2005 Volvo V70 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Ford E-250. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Volvo V70 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Ford E-250 (388 Nm) has 108 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Volvo V70. (280 Nm). This means 2009 Ford E-250 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Volvo V70.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Ford E-250 | 2005 Volvo V70 | |
| Make | Ford | Volvo |
| Model | E-250 | V70 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Van | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4606 cc | 2433 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 225 HP | 197 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 388 Nm | 280 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 966 kg | 1465 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2720 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 68 L |
