2009 Dodge Challenger vs. 2004 Dodge Dakota
To start off, 2009 Dodge Challenger is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Dodge Dakota. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Dodge Dakota would be higher. At 3,687 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Dodge Dakota is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Dodge Challenger (247 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 37 more horse power than 2004 Dodge Dakota. (210 HP @ 5600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Dodge Challenger should accelerate faster than 2004 Dodge Dakota.
Because 2004 Dodge Dakota is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Dodge Challenger. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Dodge Dakota 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, 2004 Dodge Dakota (319 Nm) has 69 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Dodge Challenger. (250 Nm). This means 2004 Dodge Dakota will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Dodge Challenger.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Dodge Challenger | 2004 Dodge Dakota | |
| Make | Dodge | Dodge |
| Model | Challenger | Dakota |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3518 cc | 3687 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 247 HP | 210 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 250 Nm | 319 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.9:1 | 9.1:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4980 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1930 mm | 1830 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2850 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.4 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 83 L |
