Mazda CX-9 2009 vs Volvo XC90 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.7 Petrol | 3.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 273 HP | 243 HP | |
| Torque: | 367 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.5 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-9 engine produces 30 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 47 NM more than Volvo XC90. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.2 | 11.5 | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-9 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-9 could require 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 76 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Volvo XC90 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 203 mm (8 inches) | 218 mm (8.6 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Volvo XC90 can perform better on bad roads - it can go over higher obstacles and bumps. At the same time, the higher ground clearance can reduce stability and handling on paved roads, especially at higher speeds. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 500'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Volvo XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC90 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Volvo XC90 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.09 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 1.91 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Mazda CX-9 is larger, but lower. Mazda CX-9 is 28 cm longer than the Volvo XC90, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-9 is 6 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 487 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 487 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 613 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2852 litres | 1837 litres | |
| In 7-seat version Mazda CX-9 has more luggage space (by 238 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-9 (by 1015 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-9 is 1.1 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Mazda CX-9 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`964 | 2`760 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 10 200 | 8400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-9 has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |