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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Chevrolet Equinox weights approximately 21 kg more 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. 2009 Chevrolet Equinox has automatic transmission and 2006 Mazda 3 has manual transmission. 2006 Mazda 3 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Chevrolet Equinox will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
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 | 1598 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 185 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 92 mm | 78 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 84 mm | 83.6 mm |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1261 kg | 1240 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1760 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1470 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2650 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 55 L |
