2005 Dodge Neon 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 Dodge Neon. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Dodge Neon would be higher. At 3,726 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 43 more horse power than 2005 Dodge Neon. (230 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2005 Dodge Neon. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Mazda CX-9 weights approximately 14 kg more than 2005 Dodge Neon. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Dodge Neon. (339 Nm). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Dodge Neon.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Dodge Neon | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Dodge | Mazda |
| Model | Neon | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2425 cc | 3726 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 230 HP | 273 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 366 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 8.1:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1315 kg | 1329 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 76 L |
