2009 Chrysler 300 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 Chrysler 300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Chrysler 300 would be higher. At 3,518 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Chrysler 300 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Chrysler 300 (250 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 92 more horse power than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Chrysler 300 should accelerate faster than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2009 Chrysler 300 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 Chrysler 300 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 Chrysler 300 (339 Nm @ 3800 RPM) has 120 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Chrysler 300 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Chrysler 300 | 2012 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Chrysler | Toyota |
Model | 300 | Matrix |
Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
Body Type | Station Wagon | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3518 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 250 HP | 158 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 339 Nm | 219 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3800 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 | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3050 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.2 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 50 L |