2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo vs. 2009 Mazda RX-8
To start off, 2009 Mazda RX-8 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo would be higher. At 3,786 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda RX-8 (232 HP @ 8500 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. (200 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
Because 2009 Mazda RX-8 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 2009 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 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, 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo (305 Nm) has 89 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda RX-8. (216 Nm). This means 2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chevrolet Monte Carlo | 2009 Mazda RX-8 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Monte Carlo | RX-8 |
Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3786 cc | 1306 cc |
Engine Type | V | dual-disk rotary |
Horse Power | 200 HP | 232 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 8500 RPM |
Torque | 305 Nm | 216 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4470 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1780 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1350 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2720 mm | 2710 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 64 L |