2009 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2004 Mazda 6
To start off, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Chevrolet Equinox is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox (264 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 165 more horse power than 2004 Mazda 6. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox should accelerate faster than 2004 Mazda 6. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mazda 6 weights approximately 84 kg more than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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 Chevrolet Equinox (340 Nm) has 109 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mazda 6. (231 Nm). This means 2009 Chevrolet Equinox will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Chevrolet Equinox | 2004 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Equinox | 6 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3600 cc | 1596 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 264 HP | 99 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 340 Nm | 231 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline - Premium |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1261 kg | 1345 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2630 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.4 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 61 L |