2005 Buick Rainier vs. 2009 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Buick Rainier. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Buick Rainier would be higher. At 4,163 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Buick Rainier is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Buick Rainier (276 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (268 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Buick Rainier should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2005 Buick Rainier 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 2005 Buick Rainier. 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, 2005 Buick Rainier (387 Nm) has 118 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm). This means 2005 Buick Rainier will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Buick Rainier | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Buick | Mazda |
| Model | Rainier | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4163 cc | 3727 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 276 HP | 268 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 387 Nm | 269 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 4600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1920 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1900 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2900 mm | 2340 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 76 L |
