2009 Mercury Milan vs. 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept
To start off, 2009 Mercury Milan 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 3,522 cc (8 cylinders), 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (791 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 570 more horse power than 2009 Mercury Milan. (221 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept should accelerate faster than 2009 Mercury Milan.
Because 2009 Mercury Milan is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mercury Milan 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, 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept (800 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 522 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mercury Milan. (278 Nm @ 4800 RPM). This means 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mercury Milan.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Mercury Milan | 2007 Dodge Charger RT Concept | |
Make | Mercury | Dodge |
Model | Milan | Charger RT Concept |
Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2967 cc | 3522 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 221 HP | 791 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 278 Nm | 800 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4800 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 9.6:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |