2009 BMW X5 vs. 2004 Mazda MPV
To start off, 2009 BMW X5 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda MPV. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda MPV would be higher. At 4,799 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 BMW X5 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 BMW X5 (350 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 150 more horse power than 2004 Mazda MPV. (200 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 BMW X5 should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda MPV.
Because 2009 BMW X5 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Mazda MPV. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 BMW X5 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 BMW X5 (475 Nm) has 215 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda MPV. (260 Nm). This means 2009 BMW X5 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda MPV.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 BMW X5 | 2004 Mazda MPV | |
| Make | BMW | Mazda |
| Model | X5 | MPV |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
| Body Type | SUV | Minivan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4799 cc | 2966 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 350 HP | 200 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6300 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Torque | 475 Nm | 260 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 93 mm | 89 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 88.3 mm | 80 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4860 mm | 4820 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1940 mm | 1840 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2940 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.7 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 75 L |
