2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2009 Mercury Milan
To start off, 2009 Mercury Milan is newer by 2 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 42 more horse power than 2009 Mercury Milan. (221 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2009 Mercury Milan.
Because 2009 Mercury Milan is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mercury Milan 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 60 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mercury Milan. (278 Nm @ 4800 RPM). This means 2007 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mercury Milan.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Mazda CX-9 | 2009 Mercury Milan | |
Make | Mazda | Mercury |
Model | CX-9 | Milan |
Year Released | 2007 | 2009 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3496 cc | 2967 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 263 HP | 221 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 338 Nm | 278 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4870 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2730 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 66 L |