2006 Jeep Wrangler vs. 2012 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2012 Toyota Matrix is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Jeep Wrangler. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Jeep Wrangler would be higher. At 3,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Jeep Wrangler is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Jeep Wrangler (190 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Jeep Wrangler should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2006 Jeep Wrangler is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Toyota Matrix. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Jeep Wrangler 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 Jeep Wrangler (319 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 100 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2006 Jeep Wrangler will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Jeep Wrangler | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Jeep | Toyota |
| Model | Wrangler | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3966 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 190 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 319 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3200 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1810 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2380 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 50 L |
