2009 Dodge Challenger vs. 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor
To start off, 2009 Dodge Challenger is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor would be higher. At 3,835 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Dodge Challenger (250 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 25 more horse power than 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor. (225 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Dodge Challenger should accelerate faster than 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor.
Because 2009 Dodge Challenger is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 Dodge Challenger. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, both vehicles can yield 339 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Dodge Challenger | 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavor | |
| Make | Dodge | Mitsubishi |
| Model | Challenger | Endeavor |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3518 cc | 3835 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 250 HP | 225 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 339 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.3:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4840 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1930 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1460 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2790 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 81 L |
