2006 Mazda RX-8 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 Mazda RX-8. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda RX-8 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 61 more horse power than 2006 Mazda RX-8. (212 HP @ 7500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda RX-8.
Because 2006 Mazda RX-8 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 Mazda RX-8. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Mazda CX-9, 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, 2010 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 150 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda RX-8. (216 Nm @ 5500 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda RX-8.
Compare all specifications:
2006 Mazda RX-8 | 2010 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Mazda | Mazda |
Model | RX-8 | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1311 cc | 3700 cc |
Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | V |
Horse Power | 212 HP | 273 HP |
Engine RPM | 7500 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 216 Nm | 366 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5500 RPM | 4250 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 5075 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1780 mm | 1935 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1727 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 2875 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 76 L |