2004 Jaguar XJ vs. 2012 Daewoo Matiz
To start off, 2012 Daewoo Matiz is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Jaguar XJ. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Jaguar XJ would be higher. At 4,194 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Jaguar XJ (300 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 250 more horse power than 2012 Daewoo Matiz. (50 HP @ 5900 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 2012 Daewoo Matiz. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 788 kg more than 2012 Daewoo Matiz. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2004 Jaguar XJ 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 Jaguar XJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2012 Daewoo Matiz, 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 Jaguar XJ (420 Nm @ 4100 RPM) has 351 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Daewoo Matiz. (69 Nm @ 4600 RPM). This means 2004 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Daewoo Matiz. 2004 Jaguar XJ has automatic transmission and 2012 Daewoo Matiz has manual transmission. 2012 Daewoo Matiz will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2004 Jaguar XJ will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Jaguar XJ | 2012 Daewoo Matiz | |
| Make | Jaguar | Daewoo |
| Model | XJ | Matiz |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4194 cc | 794 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 3 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 50 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6100 RPM | 5900 RPM |
| Torque | 420 Nm | 69 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4100 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 86 mm | 68.5 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 90.3 mm | 72 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 9.0:1 |
| Top Speed | 250 km/hour | 144 km/hour |
| Acceleration 0-100mph | 6.6 seconds | 17 seconds |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1639 kg | 851 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5220 mm | 3500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1870 mm | 1500 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1490 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2350 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.9 L/100km | 6.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 35 L |
