2004 Dodge Durango vs. 2013 Lotus Evora
To start off, 2013 Lotus Evora is newer by 9 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. In terms of performance, 2013 Lotus Evora (276 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 46 more horse power than 2004 Dodge Durango. (230 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Lotus Evora should accelerate faster than 2004 Dodge Durango. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Dodge Durango weights approximately 831 kg more than 2013 Lotus Evora.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 (393 Nm) has 43 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Lotus Evora. (350 Nm). This means 2004 Dodge Durango will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Lotus Evora.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Dodge Durango | 2013 Lotus Evora | |
| Make | Dodge | Lotus |
| Model | Durango | Evora |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Middle |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 230 HP | 276 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6400 RPM |
| Torque | 393 Nm | 350 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 93 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 87 mm | 83 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2217 kg | 1386 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5110 mm | 4350 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 2047 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1890 mm | 1229 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3030 mm | 2575 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.5 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 17 L/100km | 13.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 102 L | 60 L |
