Mazda BT-50 2006 vs Mazda CX-9 2007
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mazda BT-50 is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Mazda CX-9 can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Mazda CX-9 also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.5 | 3.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 263 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 339 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.5 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 11.5 - 12.7 | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.07 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.73 m | |
| Mazda BT-50 and Mazda CX-9 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 487 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2852 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.5 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`030 | ~ 2`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Mazda CX-9 has
| |