2006 Cadillac SRX vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Cadillac SRX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Cadillac SRX would be higher. At 4,572 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Cadillac SRX is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Cadillac SRX (320 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 188 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac SRX should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2006 Cadillac SRX 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, 2006 Cadillac SRX 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, 2006 Cadillac SRX (427 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 254 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2006 Cadillac SRX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Cadillac SRX | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Cadillac | Toyota |
Model | SRX | Matrix |
Year Released | 2006 | 2011 |
Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4572 cc | 1800 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 320 HP | 132 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 427 Nm | 173 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4960 mm | 4366 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 50 L |