2005 Chevrolet Express vs. 2009 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2009 Toyota Matrix is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chevrolet Express. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chevrolet Express would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Chevrolet Express is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Chevrolet Express (195 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 63 more horse power than 2009 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Chevrolet Express should accelerate faster than 2009 Toyota Matrix. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Chevrolet Express weights approximately 896 kg more than 2009 Toyota Matrix. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2005 Chevrolet Express (353 Nm) has 179 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Toyota Matrix. (174 Nm). This means 2005 Chevrolet Express will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Chevrolet Express | 2009 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Toyota |
| Model | Express | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Van | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4294 cc | 1798 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 195 HP | 132 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 353 Nm | 174 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.2:1 | 9.8:1 |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2226 kg | 1330 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5700 mm | 4370 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 2080 mm | 1560 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3440 mm | 2610 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 9.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.8 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 117 L | 50 L |
