2004 Dodge Durango vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Dodge Durango. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Dodge Durango would be higher. At 3,704 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Dodge Durango is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Dodge Durango (210 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 52 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Dodge Durango should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2004 Dodge Durango 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 Dodge Durango. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2011 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 Dodge Durango (319 Nm) has 100 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm). This means 2004 Dodge Durango will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Dodge Durango | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Dodge | Toyota |
Model | Durango | Matrix |
Year Released | 2004 | 2011 |
Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3704 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 158 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 319 Nm | 219 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1890 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.4 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 102 L | 50 L |