2009 Audi A8 vs. 2012 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2012 Toyota Matrix is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Audi A8. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Audi A8 would be higher. At 5,204 cc (10 cylinders), 2009 Audi A8 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Audi A8 (444 HP @ 7000 RPM) has 286 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Audi A8 should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2009 Audi A8 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, 2009 Audi A8 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 Audi A8 (540 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 321 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Audi A8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Audi A8 | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Audi | Toyota |
| Model | A8 | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5204 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 10 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 444 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 7000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 540 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | 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 | 1900 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 18.2 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 L | 50 L |
