Mazda CX-9 2016 vs BMW X5 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 250 HP | 306 HP | |
| Torque: | 310 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 6.5 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-9 engine produces 56 HP less power than BMW X5, whereas torque is 90 NM less than BMW X5. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 8.5 | |
| Mazda CX-9 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5, which means that by driving the Mazda CX-9 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 74 litres | 85 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1230 km on highway | ||
| BMW X5 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
BMW X5 2013: xDrive, based on an electronically controlled multi-plate clutch in the front-wheel drive (60% of the traction goes to the rear axle) | |||
| Ground clearance: | 224 mm (8.8 inches) | 209 mm (8.2 inches) | |
| Because of the higher ground clearance, Mazda CX-9 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. Note, however, that this Mazda CX-9 version does not have 4x4 drive, which is very important in poor road conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 BMW X5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 6 | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW X6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| BMW X5 2013 3.0 engine: Using poor quality oil on this engine will quickly lead to soot build-up, resulting in damage to the hydrocompensators, Vanos and Valvetronic systems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 4.89 m | |
| Width: | 1.97 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Mazda CX-9 is larger, but slightly lower. Mazda CX-9 is 19 cm longer than the BMW X5, 3 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-9 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | no data | |
| Trunk capacity: | 407 litres | 650 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 407 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 650 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2017 litres | 1870 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-9 (by 147 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-9 is 0.9 metres less than that of the BMW X5, which means Mazda CX-9 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`570 kg | 2`740 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`837 kg | 2`030 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 733 kg | 710 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 20 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-9 has
|
BMW X5 has
| |