2008 Ford Taurus vs. 2009 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Mazda 6 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Ford Taurus. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Ford Taurus would be higher. At 3,495 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Ford Taurus is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Ford Taurus (263 HP @ 6251 RPM) has 95 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 6. (168 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2008 Ford Taurus should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 6.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than 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, 2008 Ford Taurus (338 Nm @ 4501 RPM) has 171 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 6. (167 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2008 Ford Taurus will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 6. 2008 Ford Taurus has automatic transmission and 2009 Mazda 6 has manual transmission. 2009 Mazda 6 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2008 Ford Taurus will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Ford Taurus | 2009 Mazda 6 | |
| Make | Ford | Mazda |
| Model | Taurus | 6 |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3495 cc | 2487 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 263 HP | 168 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6251 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 167 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4501 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1850 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.4 L/100km | 8.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.1 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
