2001 Mazda CU-X vs. 2010 Holden Commodore

To start off, 2010 Holden Commodore is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Mazda CU-X. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Mazda CU-X would be higher. At 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 261 more horse power than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (99 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2001 Mazda CU-X.

Because 2010 Holden Commodore is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Holden Commodore. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2010 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 50 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (240 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Mazda CU-X. 2001 Mazda CU-X has automatic transmission and 2010 Holden Commodore has manual transmission. 2010 Holden Commodore will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2001 Mazda CU-X will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: