2009 Audi Q7 vs. 2007 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Audi Q7 is newer by 2 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 4,163 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Audi Q7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Audi Q7 (350 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 87 more horse power than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (263 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Audi Q7 should accelerate faster than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Because 2009 Audi Q7 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2007 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Audi Q7 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, 2009 Audi Q7 (441 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 103 more torque (in Nm) than 2007 Mazda CX-9. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2009 Audi Q7 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2007 Mazda CX-9.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Audi Q7 | 2007 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Audi | Mazda |
| Model | Q7 | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4163 cc | 3496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 350 HP | 263 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6800 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 441 Nm | 338 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5090 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1740 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3010 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 13.1 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 18.1 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.7 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 100 L | 76 L |
