2000 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2004 Kia Optima
To start off, 2004 Kia Optima is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chevrolet Camaro 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. 2004 Kia Optima weights approximately 300 kg more than 2000 Chevrolet Camaro.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Camaro 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 2000 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Kia Optima, 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, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro (454 Nm) has 255 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Kia Optima. (199 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Kia Optima.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chevrolet Camaro | 2004 Kia Optima | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Kia |
| Model | Camaro | Optima |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5670 cc | 2360 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 137 HP |
| Torque | 454 Nm | 199 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1188 kg | 1488 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4730 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1820 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1420 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2710 mm |
