2000 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger would be higher. At 5,670 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger weights approximately 410 kg more than 2000 Chevrolet Camaro.
Because 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger 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, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro (468 Nm) has 118 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger. (350 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Camaro | 1996 Mitsubishi Challenger | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mitsubishi |
Model | Camaro | Challenger |
Year Released | 2000 | 1996 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5670 cc | 3496 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 242 HP |
Torque | 468 Nm | 350 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1540 kg | 1950 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4540 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1740 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2730 mm |