Mazda CX-9 2009 vs Ford Ranger 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.7 Petrol | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Mazda CX-9) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Ford Ranger) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 273 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 367 NM | 330 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 12.5 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-9 engine produces 130 HP more power than Ford Ranger, whereas torque is 37 NM more than Ford Ranger. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.9 | 8.9 | |
|
The Ford Ranger is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-9 consumes 4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Ranger, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-9 could require 600 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 76 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 670 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| Ford Ranger gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
|
Mazda CX-9 has 4x4: Engine power is automatically (without driver intervention) distributed among the wheels based on conditions using a hydraulic multi-disc clutch, viscous clutch, or similar traction control device. Some systems allow locking of multi-disc clutch manually for permanent all wheel drive. | |||
| Ground clearance: | 203 mm (8 inches) | 203 mm (8 inches) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.09 m | 5.08 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.73 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Mazda CX-9 is larger. Mazda CX-9 is 1 cm longer than the Ford Ranger, 22 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-9 is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 4 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 487 litres | 1500 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 487 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 1500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2852 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | no data | |
| Power steering: | Electric power steering | Hydraulic power steering | |
| Electric power steering is simpler, quieter, more fuel-efficient, more configurable and provides additional features such as auto-steering for lane assist and parking. The disadvantages of electric power steering are possible overheating under prolonged load conditions and insufficient feedback (feeling) during steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`062 | 2`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 10 200 | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-9 has
|
Ford Ranger has
| |