2009 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2006 Mazda 3
To start off, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mazda 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda 3 would be higher. At 3,425 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Chevrolet Equinox is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox (185 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 35 more horse power than 2006 Mazda 3. (150 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Chevrolet Equinox should accelerate faster than 2006 Mazda 3.
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 (285 Nm @ 3800 RPM) has 102 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda 3. (183 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2009 Chevrolet Equinox will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Chevrolet Equinox | 2006 Mazda 3 | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
| Model | Equinox | 3 |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3425 cc | 1999 cc |
| Horse Power | 185 HP | 150 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 285 Nm | 183 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3800 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4540 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 6.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 55 L |
