2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer would be higher. At 4,162 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer (275 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 117 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2011 Toyota Matrix. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer will offer significantly more control. 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 TrailBlazer (373 Nm) has 154 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm). This means 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Chevrolet TrailBlazer | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Toyota |
| Model | TrailBlazer | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2011 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4162 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 275 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 373 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1920 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3280 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.1 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 95 L | 50 L |
