2010 Dodge Charger vs. 2011 Toyota Matrix
To start off, 2011 Toyota Matrix is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2010 Dodge Charger. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2010 Dodge Charger would be higher. At 3,500 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Dodge Charger is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Dodge Charger (250 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 92 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (158 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2010 Dodge Charger should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2010 Dodge Charger is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2011 Toyota Matrix. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Dodge Charger 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, 2010 Dodge Charger (339 Nm @ 3800 RPM) has 120 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (219 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2010 Dodge Charger will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2010 Dodge Charger | 2011 Toyota Matrix | |
| Make | Dodge | Toyota |
| Model | Charger | Matrix |
| Year Released | 2010 | 2011 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3500 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 250 HP | 158 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 219 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3800 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | AWD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1892 mm | 1765 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1478 mm | 1549 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3048 mm | 2601 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.2 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 50 L |
