2009 Chevrolet Equinox vs. 2006 Mazda MPV
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 MPV. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mazda MPV would be higher. At 3,425 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Chevrolet Equinox is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Mazda MPV (200 HP) has 15 more horse power than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox. (185 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Mazda MPV should accelerate faster than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mazda MPV weights approximately 450 kg more than 2009 Chevrolet Equinox. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
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 14 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mazda MPV. (271 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Chevrolet Equinox will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mazda MPV.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Chevrolet Equinox | 2006 Mazda MPV | |
Make | Chevrolet | Mazda |
Model | Equinox | MPV |
Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
Body Type | SUV | Minivan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3425 cc | 2966 cc |
Horse Power | 185 HP | 200 HP |
Torque | 285 Nm | 271 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3800 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1261 kg | 1711 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4800 mm | 4820 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1710 mm | 1760 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2850 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.8 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 75 L |