2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2013 Cadillac ATS
To start off, 2013 Cadillac ATS is newer by 6 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, 2013 Cadillac ATS (268 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 5 more horse power than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac ATS should accelerate faster than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2013 Cadillac ATS is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Cadillac ATS 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, 2013 Cadillac ATS (353 Nm @ 5500 RPM) has 15 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2013 Cadillac ATS 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 | 2013 Cadillac ATS | |
| Make | Mazda | Cadillac |
| Model | CX-9 | ATS |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 2000 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 268 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 353 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4643 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1806 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1417 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2772 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 7.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 61 L |
