2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2013 Mazda CX-05
To start off, 2013 Mazda CX-05 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, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 110 more horse power than 2013 Mazda CX-05. (153 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2013 Mazda CX-05.
Because 2013 Mazda CX-05 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 Mazda CX-05 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 (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 135 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mazda CX-05. (203 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2007 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mazda CX-05.
Compare all specifications:
| 2007 Mazda CX-9 | 2013 Mazda CX-05 | |
| Make | Mazda | Mazda |
| Model | CX-9 | CX-05 |
| Year Released | 2007 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Crossover |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 1998 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 153 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 203 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4000 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 | 4555 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 2165 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1710 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 6.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 58 L |
