2011 Toyota Matrix vs. 2013 Lincoln MKZ
To start off, 2013 Lincoln MKZ 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 2,000 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Lincoln MKZ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Lincoln MKZ (237 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 105 more horse power than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (132 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Lincoln MKZ should accelerate faster than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than 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 Lincoln MKZ (366 Nm @ 3300 RPM) has 193 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Toyota Matrix. (173 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2013 Lincoln MKZ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Toyota Matrix.
Compare all specifications:
| 2011 Toyota Matrix | 2013 Lincoln MKZ | |
| Make | Toyota | Lincoln |
| Model | Matrix | MKZ |
| Year Released | 2011 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1800 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 132 HP | 237 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 173 Nm | 366 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 3300 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4366 mm | 4930 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1765 mm | 2116 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1549 mm | 1478 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2601 mm | 2850 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 7.4 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 L | 63 L |
