2004 Kia Optima 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 Kia Optima. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Kia Optima would be higher. At 2,671 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Kia Optima is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Kia Optima (170 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Kia Optima should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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 Kia Optima (245 Nm) has 72 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm). This means 2004 Kia Optima will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Kia Optima | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Kia | Toyota |
Model | Optima | Matrix |
Year Released | 2004 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2671 cc | 1800 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 170 HP | 132 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 245 Nm | 173 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4730 mm | 4366 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 65 L | 50 L |