2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 1995 Volvo 850
To start off, 2007 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1995 Volvo 850. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1995 Volvo 850 would be higher. At 3,496 cc (6 cylinders), 2007 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 121 more horse power than 1995 Volvo 850. (142 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 1995 Volvo 850.
Because 2007 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1995 Volvo 850. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 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, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 163 more torque (in Nm) than 1995 Volvo 850. (175 Nm @ 3800 RPM). This means 2007 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1995 Volvo 850.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Mazda CX-9 | 1995 Volvo 850 | |
| Make | Mazda | Volvo |
| Model | CX-9 | 850 |
| Year Released | 2007 | 1995 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 1983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 142 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 175 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4720 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1770 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2670 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 7.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 73 L |
