2004 Jaguar XK vs. 2001 Mazda CU-X
To start off, 2004 Jaguar XK is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Mazda CU-X. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Mazda CU-X would be higher. At 4,196 cc (8 cylinders), 2004 Jaguar XK is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Jaguar XK (390 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 291 more horse power than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Jaguar XK should accelerate faster than 2001 Mazda CU-X. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Jaguar XK weights approximately 413 kg more than 2001 Mazda CU-X. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2004 Jaguar XK 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 Jaguar XK. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2001 Mazda CU-X, 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 Jaguar XK (525 Nm) has 285 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (240 Nm). This means 2004 Jaguar XK will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Mazda CU-X.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Jaguar XK | 2001 Mazda CU-X | |
Make | Jaguar | Mazda |
Model | XK | CU-X |
Year Released | 2004 | 2001 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4196 cc | 1970 cc |
Horse Power | 390 HP | 99 HP |
Engine RPM | 6100 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 525 Nm | 240 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Vehicle Weight | 1758 kg | 1345 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2590 mm | 2680 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 75 L | 80 L |