Ford Explorer 2008 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 | |
---|---|---|---|
Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Ford Explorer is available with rear wheel drive and 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, Ford Explorer also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
Engines: | 4.0 - 4.6 | 3.7 | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 213 - 296 HP | 273 HP | |
Torque: | 344 - 460 NM | 367 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 - 10.2 seconds | n/a seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 13.5 - 14.3 | 12.2 - 12.9 | |
Ford Explorer petrol engines consumes on average 1.4 litres more 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: | 4.94 m | 5.09 m | |
Width: | 1.87 m | 1.94 m | |
Height: | 1.83 m | 1.73 m | |
Ford Explorer is smaller, but higher. Ford Explorer is 15 cm shorter than the Mazda CX-9, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Ford Explorer is 11 cm higher. | |||
Trunk capacity: | no data | 487 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2852 litres | |
Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.4 meters | |
The turning circle of the Ford Explorer is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda CX-9. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`829 | ~ 2`013 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | no data | |
Average price (€): | no data | 10 200 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Ford Explorer has
|
Mazda CX-9 has
| |