2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2011 Ford Falcon
To start off, 2011 Ford Falcon 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 3,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2011 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 2 more horse power than 2011 Ford Falcon. (261 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2011 Ford Falcon.
Because 2007 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2011 Ford Falcon. 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, 2011 Ford Falcon (391 Nm @ 3250 RPM) has 53 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2011 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Mazda CX-9 | 2011 Ford Falcon | |
| Make | Mazda | Ford |
| Model | CX-9 | Falcon |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2011 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 3983 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 261 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 391 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3250 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4967 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1868 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1433 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2838 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.7 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 13 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 9.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 68 L |
