2009 BMW M6 vs. 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept
To start off, 2009 BMW M6 is newer by 2 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 4,999 cc (10 cylinders), 2009 BMW M6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (791 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 291 more horse power than 2009 BMW M6. (500 HP @ 7750 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2009 BMW M6.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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 281 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 BMW M6. (519 Nm @ 6100 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 BMW M6.
Compare all specifications:
2009 BMW M6 | 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | |
Make | BMW | Dodge |
Model | M6 | Charger RT Concept |
Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4999 cc | 3522 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 10 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 500 HP | 791 HP |
Engine RPM | 7750 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 519 Nm | 800 Nm |
Torque RPM | 6100 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 12.0:1 | 9.6:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 14 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 21.5 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 18.2 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |