2006 Ford E-150 vs. 2009 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Ford E-150. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Ford E-150 would be higher. At 4,605 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Ford E-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (268 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 42 more horse power than 2006 Ford E-150. (226 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2006 Ford E-150.
Let's talk about torque, 2006 Ford E-150 (388 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 119 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda CX-9. (269 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2006 Ford E-150 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Ford E-150 | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | E-150 | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Van | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4605 cc | 3727 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 226 HP | 268 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 388 Nm | 269 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5390 mm | 4600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2020 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 2060 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3510 mm | 2340 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 132 L | 76 L |
