2004 Buick Rainier vs. 2012 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2012 Toyota Matrix is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Buick Rainier. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Buick Rainier would be higher. At 4,195 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Buick Rainier is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Buick Rainier (275 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 117 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Buick Rainier should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2004 Buick Rainier 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 2004 Buick Rainier. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Toyota Matrix, 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, 2004 Buick Rainier (387 Nm) has 168 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm). This means 2004 Buick Rainier will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Buick Rainier | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Buick | Toyota |
| Model | Rainier | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4195 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 275 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 387 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1920 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1900 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2780 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 50 L |
