2003 Alfa Romeo Spider vs. 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept
To start off, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider would be higher. At 3,522 cc (8 cylinders), 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (791 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 555 more horse power than 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider. (236 HP @ 6200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider.
Because 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept 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 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider, 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, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (800 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 511 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider. (289 Nm @ 4800 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Alfa Romeo Spider.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Alfa Romeo Spider | 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | |
Make | Alfa Romeo | Dodge |
Model | Spider | Charger RT Concept |
Year Released | 2003 | 2007 |
Body Type | Roadster | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3179 cc | 3522 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 236 HP | 791 HP |
Engine RPM | 6200 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 289 Nm | 800 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4800 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 9.6:1 |
Acceleration 0-100mph | 6.3 seconds | 6 seconds |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Fuel Consumption | 9.3 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 19.9 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.2 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |