2006 Chevrolet HHR vs. 2010 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2010 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Chevrolet HHR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Chevrolet HHR would be higher. At 3,700 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda CX-9 (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 130 more horse power than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (143 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
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, 2010 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 163 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Chevrolet HHR. (203 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Chevrolet HHR.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Chevrolet HHR | 2010 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | HHR | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Hatchback | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2196 cc | 3700 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 143 HP | 273 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 203 Nm | 366 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4250 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 5075 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1935 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1727 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2640 mm | 2875 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 10.2 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 61 L | 76 L |