2004 Ford Taurus 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 Taurus. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Taurus would be higher. At 3,727 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (268 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 68 more horse power than 2004 Ford Taurus. (200 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Taurus.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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 Taurus (281 Nm) has 12 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm). This means 2004 Ford Taurus will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Ford Taurus | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Ford | Mazda |
Model | Taurus | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2983 cc | 3727 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 200 HP | 268 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 281 Nm | 269 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 4600 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1940 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1730 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2340 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 76 L |