2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept vs. 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor
To start off, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor would be higher. At 3,835 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (791 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 566 more horse power than 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor. (225 HP @ 5000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor.
Because 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept 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 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor, 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, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (800 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 453 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor. (347 Nm @ 3750 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | 2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor | |
Make | Dodge | Mitsubishi |
Model | Charger RT Concept | Endeavor |
Year Released | 2007 | 2006 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3522 cc | 3835 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 791 HP | 225 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 800 Nm | 347 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5000 RPM | 3750 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 9 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |