2009 Buick Lucerne vs. 2007 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2009 Buick Lucerne 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 3,880 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Buick Lucerne is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 36 more horse power than 2009 Buick Lucerne. (227 HP @ 5700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2009 Buick Lucerne.
Because 2007 Mazda CX-9 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Buick Lucerne. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2007 Mazda CX-9 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, 2007 Mazda CX-9 (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 16 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Buick Lucerne. (322 Nm @ 2300 RPM). This means 2007 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Buick Lucerne.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Buick Lucerne | 2007 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Buick | Mazda |
| Model | Lucerne | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2007 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3880 cc | 3496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 227 HP | 263 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5700 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 322 Nm | 338 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2300 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5170 mm | 5080 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1940 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1740 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2940 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 76 L |
