2000 Citroen C5 vs. 2006 Dodge Charger
To start off, 2006 Dodge Charger is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Citroen C5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Citroen C5 would be higher. At 6,063 cc, 2006 Dodge Charger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Dodge Charger (425 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 291 more horse power than 2000 Citroen C5. (134 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Dodge Charger should accelerate faster than 2000 Citroen C5.
Because 2006 Dodge Charger 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 2006 Dodge Charger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Citroen C5, 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 Dodge Charger (570 Nm @ 4800 RPM) has 380 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Citroen C5. (190 Nm @ 4100 RPM). This means 2006 Dodge Charger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Citroen C5.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Citroen C5 | 2006 Dodge Charger | |
| Make | Citroen | Dodge |
| Model | C5 | Charger |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1996 cc | 6063 cc |
| Horse Power | 134 HP | 425 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6200 RPM |
| Torque | 190 Nm | 570 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4100 RPM | 4800 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 5090 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1480 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 3050 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.3 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.6 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 66 L | 72 L |
