2004 Chevrolet Blazer vs. 2009 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet Blazer would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Blazer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 83 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. (190 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Blazer weights approximately 355 kg more than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. (339 Nm). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Blazer | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Blazer | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4294 cc | 3726 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 190 HP | 273 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 339 Nm | 366 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.2:1 | 10.8:1 |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1684 kg | 1329 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4510 mm | 5080 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1940 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1660 mm | 1730 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 71 L | 76 L |