2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2011 Dodge Dakota
To start off, 2011 Dodge Dakota is newer by 4 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 3,700 cc (6 cylinders), 2011 Dodge Dakota is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 53 more horse power than 2011 Dodge Dakota. (210 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2011 Dodge Dakota.
Because 2011 Dodge Dakota 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, 2011 Dodge Dakota 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 (339 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 20 more torque (in Nm) than 2011 Dodge Dakota. (319 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2007 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2011 Dodge Dakota.
Compare all specifications:
2007 Mazda CX-9 | 2011 Dodge Dakota | |
Make | Mazda | Dodge |
Model | CX-9 | Dakota |
Year Released | 2007 | 2011 |
Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3496 cc | 3700 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 263 HP | 210 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5200 RPM |
Torque | 339 Nm | 319 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4000 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 | 5560 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1950 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1750 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 3340 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 83 L |