2003 AC Aceca vs. 2009 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 AC Aceca. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 AC Aceca would be higher. At 3,727 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 AC Aceca (350 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 82 more horse power than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (268 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 AC Aceca should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2003 AC Aceca 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 2003 AC Aceca. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9, 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, 2003 AC Aceca (400 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 131 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2003 AC Aceca will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
2003 AC Aceca | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | AC | Mazda |
Model | Aceca | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2003 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3506 cc | 3727 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 350 HP | 268 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 400 Nm | 269 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4250 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 4600 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1940 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1730 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 2340 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 90 L | 76 L |