Chevrolet Traverse 2009 vs Mazda CX-9 2009
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 3.6 | 3.7 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 281 - 288 HP | 273 HP | |
| Torque: | 361 - 366 NM | 367 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.8 - 10.2 | 12.2 - 12.9 | |
|
Chevrolet Traverse petrol engines consumes on average 2.6 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! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.21 m | 5.09 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.85 m | 1.73 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | 691 litres | 487 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
3296 litres | 2852 litres | |
|
Chevrolet Traverse has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Mazda CX-9 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Chevrolet Traverse (by 444 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.4 meters | |
| Gross weight: | ~ 2`930 kg | ~ 2`013 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Traverse has
|
| |