2004 Chevrolet Astro 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 Chevrolet Astro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet Astro would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Astro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Chevrolet Astro (190 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Chevrolet Astro should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2004 Chevrolet Astro 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 Chevrolet Astro. 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 Chevrolet Astro (339 Nm) has 120 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm). This means 2004 Chevrolet Astro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Astro | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Chevrolet | Toyota |
Model | Astro | Matrix |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Minivan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4294 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 190 HP | 158 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 339 Nm | 219 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 8 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1980 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1910 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 102 L | 50 L |