2006 Audi TT vs. 2012 Mazda CX-7
To start off, 2012 Mazda CX-7 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Audi TT. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Audi TT would be higher. At 2,500 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Mazda CX-7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Audi TT (225 HP @ 5900 RPM) has 64 more horse power than 2012 Mazda CX-7. (161 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Audi TT should accelerate faster than 2012 Mazda CX-7. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Mazda CX-7 weights approximately 121 kg more than 2006 Audi TT.
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, 2006 Audi TT (282 Nm @ 2200 RPM) has 64 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mazda CX-7. (218 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2006 Audi TT will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mazda CX-7.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Audi TT | 2012 Mazda CX-7 | |
| Make | Audi | Mazda |
| Model | TT | CX-7 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1786 cc | 2500 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 5 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 225 HP | 161 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5900 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 282 Nm | 218 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2200 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1465 kg | 1586 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4050 mm | 4681 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1872 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1646 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 2751 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.1 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 62 L |
