2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2012 Nissan Titan
To start off, 2012 Nissan Titan is newer by 5 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 5,551 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Nissan Titan is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Nissan Titan (317 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 54 more horse power than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Nissan Titan should accelerate faster than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or 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, 2012 Nissan Titan (522 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 184 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2012 Nissan Titan 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 | 2012 Nissan Titan | |
| Make | Mazda | Nissan |
| Model | CX-9 | Titan |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 5551 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 317 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 522 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3400 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 5710 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 2030 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1940 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 4060 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 19.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 140 L |
