2007 Lincoln MKX vs. 2009 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Lincoln MKX. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Lincoln MKX would be higher. At 3,726 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 8 more horse power than 2007 Lincoln MKX. (265 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2007 Lincoln MKX.
Because 2007 Lincoln MKX is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2007 Lincoln MKX will offer significantly more control. 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, 2009 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 27 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Lincoln MKX. (339 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Lincoln MKX.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Lincoln MKX | 2009 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Lincoln | Mazda |
| Model | MKX | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 3726 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 265 HP | 273 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 366 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4740 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1930 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1720 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 76 L |
