2004 Dodge Neon vs. 2009 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2009 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Dodge Neon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Dodge Neon would be higher. At 2,425 cc (4 cylinders), 2004 Dodge Neon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda RX-8 (232 HP @ 8500 RPM) has 1 more horse power than 2004 Dodge Neon. (231 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2004 Dodge Neon. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Dodge Neon weights approximately 190 kg more than 2009 Mazda RX-8.
Because 2009 Mazda RX-8 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 2009 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Dodge Neon, 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 Neon (339 Nm) has 123 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda RX-8. (216 Nm). This means 2004 Dodge Neon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Dodge Neon | 2009 Mazda RX-8 | |
| Make | Dodge | Mazda |
| Model | Neon | RX-8 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2425 cc | 1307 cc |
| Engine Type | in-line | dual-disk rotary |
| Horse Power | 231 HP | 232 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 8500 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 216 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1315 kg | 1125 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4470 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1350 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2710 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 64 L |
