2011 Toyota Matrix vs. 2013 BMW X5
To start off, 2013 BMW X5 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2011 Toyota Matrix. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2011 Toyota Matrix would be higher. At 2,985 cc (6 cylinders), 2013 BMW X5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 BMW X5 (296 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 164 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 BMW X5 should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Because 2013 BMW X5 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, 2013 BMW X5 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, 2013 BMW X5 (407 Nm @ 5800 RPM) has 234 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2013 BMW X5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2011 Toyota Matrix | 2013 BMW X5 | |
| Make | Toyota | BMW |
| Model | Matrix | X5 |
| Year Released | 2011 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1800 cc | 2985 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 132 HP | 296 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Torque | 173 Nm | 407 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 8-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4366 mm | 4857 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1765 mm | 2197 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1549 mm | 1776 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2601 mm | 2933 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 7.4 L/100km | 8.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 L | 85 L |
