Chevrolet Equinox 2005 vs Mazda CX-9 2007
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 3.4 - 3.6 | 3.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 185 - 264 HP | 263 HP | |
| Torque: | 285 - 339 NM | 339 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 - 11.0 | 11.5 - 12.7 | |
|
Chevrolet Equinox petrol engines consumes on average 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mazda CX-9. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 5.07 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.73 m | |
|
Chevrolet Equinox is smaller, but slightly higher. Chevrolet Equinox is 28 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-9, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Chevrolet Equinox is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 860 litres | 487 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2852 litres | |
|
Chevrolet Equinox has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Chevrolet Equinox has 373 litres more trunk space than the Mazda CX-9. The Mazda CX-9 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 2`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 6400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Equinox has
|
| |