2004 Mazda B2300 vs. 2011 Saab 9-4X
To start off, 2011 Saab 9-4X is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda B2300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda B2300 would be higher. At 3,000 cc (6 cylinders), 2011 Saab 9-4X is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2011 Saab 9-4X (265 HP @ 6950 RPM) has 122 more horse power than 2004 Mazda B2300. (143 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2011 Saab 9-4X should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda B2300.
Because 2004 Mazda B2300 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 Mazda B2300. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2011 Saab 9-4X, 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, 2011 Saab 9-4X (302 Nm) has 93 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda B2300. (209 Nm). This means 2011 Saab 9-4X will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda B2300.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Mazda B2300 | 2011 Saab 9-4X | |
| Make | Mazda | Saab |
| Model | B2300 | 9-4X |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2011 |
| Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2262 cc | 3000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 143 HP | 265 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 6950 RPM |
| Torque | 209 Nm | 302 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 3 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5130 mm | 4829 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1905 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3200 mm | 2807 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.1 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 74 L | 80 L |
