2004 Chevrolet Tracker vs. 2008 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2008 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet Tracker would be higher. At 3,726 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Mazda CX-9 (270 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 105 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (165 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Chevrolet Tracker weights approximately 109 kg more than 2008 Mazda CX-9.
Let's talk about torque, 2008 Mazda CX-9 (370 Nm) has 149 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker. (221 Nm). This means 2008 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Tracker.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Tracker | 2008 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Tracker | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2008 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2491 cc | 3726 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 165 HP | 270 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 221 Nm | 370 Nm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1300 kg | 1191 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4140 mm | 5080 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1940 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1670 mm | 1730 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 76 L |