2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2010 Ford E-150
To start off, 2010 Ford E-150 is newer by 3 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 4,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Ford E-150 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Ford E-150 (265 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 2 more horse power than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Ford E-150 should accelerate faster than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, both vehicles can yield 339 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Mazda CX-9 | 2010 Ford E-150 | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | CX-9 | E-150 |
Year Released | 2007 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Van |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3496 cc | 4600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 263 HP | 265 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 339 Nm | 339 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4717 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1925 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1702 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2824 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 72 L |