Mazda CX-9 2016 vs Mazda CX-5 2012
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 231 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Mazda CX-9 engine produces 81 HP more power than Mazda CX-5, whereas torque is 210 NM more than Mazda CX-5. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 6.3 | |
|
The Mazda CX-5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mazda CX-9 consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-9 could require 315 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 74 litres | 56 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 Mazda CX-5 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mazda 6 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3, Mazda MX-5, Mazda CX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda CX-5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Mazda CX-5 2012 2.0 engine: This engine is not well-suited for low-quality fuel, as it quickly clogs the fuel system. The use of substandard fuel often leads to the failure of expensive ignition coils, resulting in significant repair ... More about Mazda CX-5 2012 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.97 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.75 m | 1.67 m | |
|
Mazda CX-9 is larger. Mazda CX-9 is 54 cm longer than the Mazda CX-5, 13 cm wider, while the height of Mazda CX-9 is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | 7 seats | 5 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 407 litres | 463 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | 407 litres | no data | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | no data | 463 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2017 litres | 1620 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda CX-9 (by 397 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mazda CX-9 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-5, which means Mazda CX-9 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`570 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 10 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mazda CX-9 has
|
Mazda CX-5 has
| |