Nissan Navara 2010 vs Mazda CX-9 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 231 HP | 273 HP | |
| Torque: | 550 NM | 367 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Nissan Navara engine produces 42 HP less power than Mazda CX-9, but torque is 183 NM more than Mazda CX-9. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.5 | 12.9 | |
|
The Nissan Navara is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Nissan Navara consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda CX-9, which means that by driving the Nissan Navara over 15,000 km in a year you can save 510 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 76 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 670 km on highway | ||
| Nissan Navara gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
|
Mazda CX-9 2009: 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. | |||
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Renault Laguna, Infiniti FX, Nissan Pathfinder | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan Navara might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Nissan Navara 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. | |||
| Nissan Navara 2010 3.0 engine: The V9X engine stands out due to its unusual 65-degree V-angle. It features a lightweight cast-iron block, aluminum cylinder heads with hydraulic lifters, a variable geometry turbocharger, and a chain-driven timing ... More about Nissan Navara 2010 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.40 m | 5.09 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.79 m | 1.73 m | |
| Nissan Navara is 31 cm longer than the Mazda CX-9, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Navara is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 487 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 487 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2852 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 13.3 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Navara is 1.9 metres more than that of the Mazda CX-9, which means Nissan Navara can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`010 | 2`062 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 15 000 | 10 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Navara has
|
Mazda CX-9 has
| |