2009 Dodge Dakota vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Dodge Dakota. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Dodge Dakota would be higher. At 3,701 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Dodge Dakota is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Dodge Dakota (210 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 78 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Dodge Dakota should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2009 Dodge Dakota is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2011 Toyota Matrix. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 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, 2009 Dodge Dakota (319 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 146 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2009 Dodge Dakota will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Dodge Dakota | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
Make | Dodge | Toyota |
Model | Dakota | Matrix |
Year Released | 2009 | 2011 |
Body Type | Pickup | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3701 cc | 1800 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 132 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 319 Nm | 173 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5560 mm | 4366 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1765 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1750 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3340 mm | 2601 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.2 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 17 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 50 L |