2009 Audi R8 vs. 2006 Mitsubishi Raider
To start off, 2009 Audi R8 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mitsubishi Raider. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mitsubishi Raider would be higher. At 5,204 cc (10 cylinders), 2009 Audi R8 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Audi R8 (518 HP @ 8000 RPM) has 308 more horse power than 2006 Mitsubishi Raider. (210 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Audi R8 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mitsubishi Raider. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Audi R8 weights approximately 405 kg more than 2006 Mitsubishi Raider. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 R8 (530 Nm @ 6500 RPM) has 211 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mitsubishi Raider. (319 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2009 Audi R8 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mitsubishi Raider.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Audi R8 | 2006 Mitsubishi Raider | |
| Make | Audi | Mitsubishi |
| Model | R8 | Raider |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Middle | Front |
| Engine Size | 5204 cc | 3704 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 10 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 518 HP | 210 HP |
| Engine RPM | 8000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 530 Nm | 319 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 6500 RPM | 3600 RPM |
| Drive Type | AWD | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1580 kg | 1175 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 5590 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1260 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2660 mm | 3340 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 12.4 L/100km | 12.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 19.6 L/100km | 15.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.7 L/100km | 14 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 83 L |
