2005 Mazda RX-8 vs. 2009 Nissan Rogue
To start off, 2009 Nissan Rogue is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mazda RX-8. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mazda RX-8 would be higher. At 2,488 cc (4 cylinders), 2009 Nissan Rogue is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Mazda RX-8 (228 HP @ 8200 RPM) has 57 more horse power than 2009 Nissan Rogue. (171 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Mazda RX-8 should accelerate faster than 2009 Nissan Rogue. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Nissan Rogue weights approximately 264 kg more than 2005 Mazda RX-8.
Because 2009 Nissan Rogue is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Mazda RX-8. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Nissan Rogue 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 Nissan Rogue (237 Nm @ 4400 RPM) has 26 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mazda RX-8. (211 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2009 Nissan Rogue will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Mazda RX-8 | 2009 Nissan Rogue | |
| Make | Mazda | Nissan |
| Model | RX-8 | Rogue |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Crossover |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1308 cc | 2488 cc |
| Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
| Horse Power | 228 HP | 171 HP |
| Engine RPM | 8200 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 211 Nm | 237 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 9.8:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1065 kg | 1329 kg |
| Wheelbase Size | 2840 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 60 L |
