2009 Acura TL vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Acura TL. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Acura TL would be higher. At 3,664 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Acura TL is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Acura TL (306 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 148 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Acura TL should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2009 Acura TL 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, 2009 Acura TL 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, 2009 Acura TL (370 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 151 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Acura TL will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Acura TL | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Acura | Toyota |
| Model | TL | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2011 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3664 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 306 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 370 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2780 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.4 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 50 L |
