2004 GMC Yukon 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 GMC Yukon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 GMC Yukon would be higher. At 5,359 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 GMC Yukon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 GMC Yukon (295 HP) has 163 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2004 GMC Yukon should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2004 GMC Yukon 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 GMC Yukon. 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 GMC Yukon (448 Nm) has 275 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm). This means 2004 GMC Yukon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 GMC Yukon | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | GMC | Toyota |
| Model | Yukon | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5359 cc | 1800 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 295 HP | 132 HP |
| Torque | 448 Nm | 173 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 9 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5580 mm | 4366 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2010 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1930 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.1 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 117 L | 50 L |
