2011 Saab 9-4X vs. 2013 Dodge CHARGER
To start off, 2013 Dodge CHARGER is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2011 Saab 9-4X. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2011 Saab 9-4X would be higher. At 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2013 Dodge CHARGER is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Dodge CHARGER (365 HP @ 5250 RPM) has 65 more horse power than 2011 Saab 9-4X. (300 HP @ 5500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Dodge CHARGER should accelerate faster than 2011 Saab 9-4X.
Both vehicles are all wheel drive (AWD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear 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, 2013 Dodge CHARGER (536 Nm @ 4200 RPM) has 136 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Saab 9-4X. (400 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 2013 Dodge CHARGER will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Saab 9-4X.
Compare all specifications:
| 2011 Saab 9-4X | 2013 Dodge CHARGER | |
| Make | Saab | Dodge |
| Model | 9-4X | CHARGER |
| Year Released | 2011 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2800 cc | 5700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 365 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 5250 RPM |
| Torque | 400 Nm | 536 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4200 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | AWD | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 5-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4829 mm | 5077 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1905 mm | 1905 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1679 mm | 1482 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2807 mm | 3052 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 8.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 14.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 72 L |
