2005 Mazda 6 vs. 2009 Holden Commodore
To start off, 2009 Holden Commodore is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 200 more horse power than 2005 Mazda 6. (160 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2005 Mazda 6.
Because 2009 Holden Commodore 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 2009 Holden Commodore. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Mazda 6, 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, 2009 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 80 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mazda 6. (210 Nm). This means 2009 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Mazda 6 | 2009 Holden Commodore | |
Make | Mazda | Holden |
Model | 6 | Commodore |
Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2262 cc | 5976 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 160 HP | 360 HP |
Torque | 210 Nm | 290 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.1 L/100km | 14.4 L/100km |