2004 Ford Mustang 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 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (268 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 2004 Ford Mustang. (260 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Mustang.
Because 2004 Ford Mustang 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 2004 Ford Mustang. 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, 2004 Ford Mustang (411 Nm) has 142 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Mustang | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Mustang | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4605 cc | 3727 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 260 HP | 268 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 411 Nm | 269 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4660 mm | 4600 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1940 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1730 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2340 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 59 L | 76 L |