2006 Holden Commodore 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 Holden Commodore. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Holden Commodore would be higher. At 5,976 cc (8 cylinders), 2006 Holden Commodore is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Holden Commodore (360 HP) has 277 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 3. (83 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Holden Commodore should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 3.
Because 2006 Holden Commodore 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 Holden Commodore. 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 Holden Commodore (290 Nm) has 166 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 3. (124 Nm). This means 2006 Holden Commodore will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Holden Commodore | 2009 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Holden | Mazda |
| Model | Commodore | 3 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5976 cc | 1347 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 360 HP | 83 HP |
| Torque | 290 Nm | 124 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.4 L/100km | 7.1 L/100km |
