Ford Ranger 2006 vs Mazda CX-9 2007
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 3.5 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 143 HP | 263 HP | |
| Torque: | 330 NM | 339 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Ford Ranger engine produces 120 HP less power than Mazda CX-9, whereas torque is 9 NM less than Mazda CX-9. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.9 | 11.5 | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Ford Ranger consumes 2.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-9, which means that by driving the Ford Ranger over 15,000 km in a year you can save 390 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 63 litres | 76 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| Ford Ranger gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 5.07 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.73 m | |
| Ford Ranger and Mazda CX-9 are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | 5 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 1500 litres | 487 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 487 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 1500 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2852 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 13 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`020 | 2`635 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7200 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Ranger has
|
Mazda CX-9 has
| |