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): | 8.8 | 8.5 | |
| Mazda CX-9 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mazda CX-9 could require 45 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 74 litres | 85 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 830 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
| 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. | |||
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`640 kg | 2`740 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`969 kg | 2`030 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 671 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
| |