2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2008 Nissan Quest
To start off, 2008 Nissan Quest is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2007 Mazda CX-9. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2007 Mazda CX-9 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 28 more horse power than 2008 Nissan Quest. (235 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2008 Nissan Quest.
Because 2007 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2008 Nissan Quest. 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 9 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Nissan Quest. (329 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2007 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Nissan Quest.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Mazda CX-9 | 2008 Nissan Quest | |
Make | Mazda | Nissan |
Model | CX-9 | Quest |
Year Released | 2007 | 2008 |
Body Type | SUV | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3496 cc | 3494 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 263 HP | 235 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5800 RPM |
Torque | 338 Nm | 329 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 7 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 5190 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1980 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1830 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 3160 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 76 L |