2005 Chevrolet Equinox 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 Chevrolet Equinox. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chevrolet Equinox would be higher. At 3,724 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 88 more horse power than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. (185 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Chevrolet Equinox weights approximately 480 kg more than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2009 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm) has 81 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox. (285 Nm). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Chevrolet Equinox.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Chevrolet Equinox | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
| Model | Equinox | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3425 cc | 3724 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 185 HP | 273 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 285 Nm | 366 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 9.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1660 kg | 1180 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.6 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.5 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.4 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 76 L |
