Mazda CX-9 2012 vs Ford Explorer 2010
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 3.7 | 2.0 - 3.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 273 - 277 HP | 240 - 345 HP | |
| Torque: | 367 NM | 270 - 485 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.1 seconds | 6.4 - 8.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.3 | 10.2 - 12.3 | |
|
Mazda CX-9 petrol engines consumes on average 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford Explorer. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.10 m | 5.01 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 2.00 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.80 m | |
| Mazda CX-9 is 9 cm longer than the Ford Explorer, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Mazda CX-9 is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 487 litres | 1223 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2852 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Explorer has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Mazda CX-9 has 736 litres less trunk space than the Ford Explorer. This could mean that the Mazda CX-9 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | no data | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`712 | ~ 2`700 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 12 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Ford Explorer has
| |