2008 Nissan Titan vs. 2010 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2010 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Nissan Titan. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Nissan Titan would be higher. At 5,552 cc (8 cylinders), 2008 Nissan Titan is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Nissan Titan (317 HP @ 4900 RPM) has 44 more horse power than 2010 Mazda CX-9. (273 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2008 Nissan Titan should accelerate faster than 2010 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2008 Nissan Titan is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Nissan Titan 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, 2008 Nissan Titan (522 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 156 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Mazda CX-9. (366 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2008 Nissan Titan will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
2008 Nissan Titan | 2010 Mazda CX-9 | |
Make | Nissan | Mazda |
Model | Titan | CX-9 |
Year Released | 2008 | 2010 |
Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5552 cc | 3700 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 317 HP | 273 HP |
Engine RPM | 4900 RPM | 6250 RPM |
Torque | 522 Nm | 366 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 4250 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5710 mm | 5075 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1935 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1900 mm | 1727 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3560 mm | 2875 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 14 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 19.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 106 L | 76 L |