2008 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2013 Chevrolet Equinox
To start off, 2013 Chevrolet Equinox is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Mazda CX-9. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Mazda CX-9 would be higher. At 3,726 cc (6 cylinders), 2008 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Mazda CX-9 (270 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox. (180 HP @ 6700 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2008 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Chevrolet Equinox weights approximately 589 kg more than 2008 Mazda CX-9.
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 Mazda CX-9 (370 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 137 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox. (233 Nm @ 4900 RPM). This means 2008 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Chevrolet Equinox.
Compare all specifications:
2008 Mazda CX-9 | 2013 Chevrolet Equinox | |
Make | Mazda | Chevrolet |
Model | CX-9 | Equinox |
Year Released | 2008 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Crossover |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3726 cc | 2400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 270 HP | 180 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6700 RPM |
Torque | 370 Nm | 233 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4900 RPM |
Drive Type | 4WD | AWD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed automatic |
Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1191 kg | 1780 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4771 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1842 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1760 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 2857 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 6.9 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 10.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 71 L |