2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept vs. 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer
To start off, 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept would be higher. At 3,522 cc (8 cylinders), 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (791 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 645 more horse power than 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer. (146 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Because 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer 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, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (800 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 603 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer. (197 Nm @ 4200 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | 2013 Mitsubishi Lancer | |
| Make | Dodge | Mitsubishi |
| Model | Charger RT Concept | Lancer |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3522 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 16 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | W |
| Horse Power | 791 HP | 146 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 800 Nm | 197 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5000 RPM | 4200 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.6:1 | 10:01:00 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | CVT |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 5.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
