2004 Dodge Neon vs. 2013 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 9 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 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro (319 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 187 more horse power than 2004 Dodge Neon. (132 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro should accelerate faster than 2004 Dodge Neon. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 526 kg more than 2004 Dodge Neon. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2013 Chevrolet Camaro 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 2013 Chevrolet Camaro. 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, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro (377 Nm) has 201 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Dodge Neon. (176 Nm). This means 2013 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Dodge Neon.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Dodge Neon | 2013 Chevrolet Camaro | |
| Make | Dodge | Chevrolet |
| Model | Neon | Camaro |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1999 cc | 3600 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 132 HP | 319 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6800 RPM |
| Torque | 176 Nm | 377 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 87 mm | 94 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 83 mm | 86 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.3:1 | 11.5 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1171 kg | 1697 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 4836 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1918 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1377 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2852 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 6.5 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 8.1 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 72 L |
