2008 Lincoln MKZ vs. 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept
To start off, 2008 Lincoln MKZ is newer by 1 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 528 more horse power than 2008 Lincoln MKZ. (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2008 Lincoln MKZ.
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, 2008 Lincoln MKZ, 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 462 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Lincoln MKZ. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Lincoln MKZ.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Lincoln MKZ | 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | |
| Make | Lincoln | Dodge |
| Model | MKZ | Charger RT Concept |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2007 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3500 cc | 3522 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 791 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 800 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.3:1 | 9.6:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
