2005 Ford Mustang vs. 2007 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2007 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Ford Mustang. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Ford Mustang would be higher. At 4,606 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Ford Mustang (300 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 37 more horse power than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (263 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Ford Mustang should accelerate faster than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2007 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Ford Mustang. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2007 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, 2005 Ford Mustang (434 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 96 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2005 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Ford Mustang | 2007 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Mustang | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2007 |
| Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4606 cc | 3496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 3 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 300 HP | 263 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 434 Nm | 338 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4770 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1740 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.6 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 76 L |
