2005 GMC Envoy 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 GMC Envoy. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 GMC Envoy would be higher. At 4,160 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 GMC Envoy is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 GMC Envoy (271 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 3 more horse power than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (268 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 GMC Envoy should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2005 GMC Envoy is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 GMC Envoy 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 GMC Envoy (373 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 104 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2005 GMC Envoy will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 GMC Envoy | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | GMC | Mazda |
| Model | Envoy | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4160 cc | 3727 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 271 HP | 268 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 373 Nm | 269 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4870 mm | 4600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1780 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2340 mm |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 76 L |
