2009 Dodge Dakota vs. 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept
To start off, 2009 Dodge Dakota 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 3,701 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Dodge Dakota is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (791 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 584 more horse power than 2009 Dodge Dakota. (207 HP @ 5200 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2009 Dodge Dakota.
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 564 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Dodge Dakota. (236 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Dodge Dakota.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Dodge Dakota | 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | |
| Make | Dodge | Dodge |
| Model | Dakota | Charger RT Concept |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3701 cc | 3522 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 207 HP | 791 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 236 Nm | 800 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
