2006 Chevrolet Kodiak vs. 2009 Mazda 3

To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak would be higher. At 6,600 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak is equipped with a bigger engine.

Because 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak 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 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3, 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, 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak (820 Nm @ 1600 RPM) has 633 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 3. (187 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 3. 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak has automatic transmission and 2009 Mazda 3 has manual transmission. 2009 Mazda 3 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2006 Chevrolet Kodiak will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: